Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: afterimagedan on March 10, 2013, 08:54:53 PM
-
So this seems to be the subject that is backing up the Bakka and Admech lists. Could you discuss that here and make the changes we need to make so they are appropriately priced in the IN, Bakka, and Admech lists?
Admech light cruisers have the Admech bonuses and downsides which will make it more expensive than the IN version. The Bakka version has an additional built in turret (not the one you can optionally buy).
It seems that we have the profile already voted on and extablished, so let's figure out the right cost for it in each list when the modifications the list provides.
ENDEAVOR (currently 125 pts)
6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+, 2 turrets
P/S wbs 30cm 6
Prow torpedoes 2
Prow WBs F/L/R 2
ENDURANCE (currently 125 pts)
6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+, 2 turrets
P/S lances 30cm 2
Prow torpedoes 2
Prow WBs F/L/R 2
DEFIANT (currently 115 pts)
6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+, 2 turrets
P/S Launchbays (1 each)
Prow torpedoes 2
Prow wbs F/L/R/ 30cm 2
-
I think 110 or a max of 115 is about right for the CL.
All though they get a hefty defensive bonus with the prow armor and 90` turns on paper, this really doesn't play out in game for a couple of reasons.
1. 6+ prow is roughly the equivalent of shooting at the ship abeam. Since most of their weapons are p/s they don't gain as much benefit from using their 90` turns to point the the 6+ at the enemy up close. At range, it does make them more survivable, but at range they won't be using the 90` turns while closing. Prior to gaining the 6+ prow, the Endeavour series did work all right squadroned to a full cruiser and benefiting for the 6+ prow and squadron rules to avoid fire. The added 6+ just makes it a bit easier to work alone although their speed dictates they stay with the line.
2. Lances ignore the 6+ and the ships only have one shield. It's the same problem that Marines faced. With one shield and 6 hits, it's pretty easy to cripple them and on top of that completely ignore their armor bonus that's supposed to help the durability.
-
The other problem is they're too slow. While they're armed as light cruisers, they don't work like light cruisers. They really need +5cm speed.
-
Nah. the concept behind the Endeavor and the Dauntless are different. The Dauntless is supposed to function like a large escort hence the 25cm speed while the Endeavour series is supposed to function like a small cruiser and get the 20cm speed.
The dauntless does its job well, the endeavour not so much which is where the idea of the 6+ prow came from. It lets the Endeavour series function as part of the line with full size cruisers. I actually think that while the loss of 90` for the 6+ prow is a bit annoying, it does help to emphasize the role the Endeavour is supposed to have.
-
Nah. the concept behind the Endeavor and the Dauntless are different. The Dauntless is supposed to function like a large escort hence the 25cm speed while the Endeavour series is supposed to function like a small cruiser and get the 20cm speed.
The dauntless does its job well, the endeavour not so much which is where the idea of the 6+ prow came from. It lets the Endeavour series function as part of the line with full size cruisers. I actually think that while the loss of 90` for the 6+ prow is a bit annoying, it does help to emphasize the role the Endeavour is supposed to have.
Again we hit that 'supposed to' The reality is that the way the game works, no light cruiser will ever be effective in a line of battle. Stop and think about the Strike Cruisers stats and how badly it didn't work until we gave it extra shields on top of 25cm AND +6 all around armor (and all the other crap it does as well).
Further, Endeavor was never meant to be a 20cm ship. It's speed was pared back for Armada from the original 25cm design. No other stats were changed, IIRC.
-
Well yes and no on the speed. The originals presented in the BFG mag had 20cm speed and no option for a 6+ prow. The Bakka list from the 2002 annual had a different Endeavour (weapons 8/side no lfr) with 25cm speed.
I could see these dropping back to 110 each, even with the boost to the prow armor they just dont have the oomph to be worth any more, 115 for Bakka with the built in 3rd turret, admech to be determined i suppose?
I too would like to see them get the option to increase their speed tho given that almost every fleet can take these but not the Dauntless. A simple option to swap the 6+ prow for the +5cm and +1d6aaf would allow these ships to fulfill both roles.
Is everyone still good with the Defiant retaining the 2wb and 2torp over the 2 lances?
-
The reality is that the way the game works, no light cruiser will ever be effective in a line of battle. Stop and think about the Strike Cruisers stats and how badly it didn't work until we gave it extra shields on top of 25cm AND +6 all around armor (and all the other crap it does as well).
Actually, they are. Squadron them with a full cruiser for protection and they work fine. I know you like fast IN but the Endeavour doesn't need 25cm speed to work.
Further, Endeavor was never meant to be a 20cm ship. It's speed was pared back for Armada from the original 25cm design. No other stats were changed, IIRC.
I've never seen a version of the Endeavour at 25cm, but I'm guessing it was part of the ancient bakka? I doubt that the designers with armada just changed the speed accidentally. I do know for a fact that the concept for the dauntless is a larger escort while the Endeavour comes from the opposite direction to be a smaller line cruiser. They are two different types of ship.
-
As an alternative allowing the Dauntless into other fleets would work just fine also.
-
So, 110pts and 115pts with the extra turret in Bakka. What about the Defiant? If this is the case, the Admech versions at 130 seem appropriate.
-
For the sake of it:
20cm speed is fine for them. They work good like that.
110pts would work fine vs the Dauntless, and like I said in the other thread: 130 for the AdMech version. ::)
-
I've been thinking - this game already has a 6 hit 6+/5+ 20cm speed line cruiser, in form of Tau Protector. From what I know, no one considers Protector particularily week, so maybe it should be look at as an example of how
'mini line cruiser' shoud function...
First of all, defensively it has 2 shields and more turret strength. I don't think we can give it to Endeavor types - even for strike cruisers it's optional upgrade. Would really define the ship as a small cruiser, though. On the other hand, its 'prow' can be disabled by critical hit, while imperial can't.
Second of all - Protector has overlapping fire arcs, so what it lacks in durability it makes up for in ability to concentrate firepower. maybe this should be looked at? less port/starboard guns, more front?
Third - it has 90 turns. If it hadn't, it would not really work. So What I'm certain is Endeavor should remain at 90, regardless of prow armour.
In general, it might be worth looking at Endeavor type cruisers not as 'different dauntless' but rather 'cheaper imperial protector'. Thoughts?
-
hmmm, more like:
"The Voss CL are no substitutes for the Dauntless CL."
They can be added to larger cruisers due their broadside gunnery.
-
Actually, they are. Squadron them with a full cruiser for protection and they work fine. I know you like fast IN but the Endeavour doesn't need 25cm speed to work.
Eh... Two things: one, the three times I tried that it died horribly anyway, and two, my cruiser squadrons are usually full already. (remember there's a 4 ship limit) I'm not going to ditch a Lunar to put a light cruiser in.
The reason for the speed reduction was the Segmentum Solar list. In order to balance the fleet, they had to reduce the number of 25cm ships in it, but GW had already designed the minis as 'Voss' at that point, IIRC.
hmmm, more like:
"The Voss CL are no substitutes for the Dauntless CL."
They can be added to larger cruisers due their broadside gunnery.
The problem with that is 'Why would any competitive list ever take an LC other than Dauntless?" Armageddon and Bakka both have better LC options than any of the Voss ships, and those are the only lists the Voss ships appear in.
For the cost of an escort more, Armageddon gets the absurdly superior strike cruiser. For 10 points less Bakka gets the Siluria, which can be pretty brutal in squadrons.
-
Double Post
-
What about the Defiant?
-
Eh... Two things: one, the three times I tried that it died horribly anyway, and two, my cruiser squadrons are usually full already. (remember there's a 4 ship limit) I'm not going to ditch a Lunar to put a light cruiser in.
Different play styles and meta-games then. I've had fair success with them squadroned with full cruisers in the past and I don't typically have full squadrons. Usually a max of two and rarely three ships.
For the cost of an escort more, Armageddon gets the absurdly superior strike cruiser. For 10 points less Bakka gets the Siluria, which can be pretty brutal in squadrons.
The usual wisdom says that mixing the marines and armageddon fleet isn't as competitive and the batreps I've read as well as my own experience seems to agree.
-
@Vaaish I have always thought that mixing marines and IN would be sub-par, as their strengths are so different...
Apart form lowering the point value, what do the Voss cruisers require to be playable, even in a list that would feature both? As has been mentioned the Dauntless operates more like the mother of all escorts, with a high speed and firepower for its points. It compensates by being a fair bit more fragile than a full cruiser.
The endeavour cruisers are, as has also been mentioned, designed to fill the role of a mini ship of the line. So what does it require to fit that role? Since it take more shots as a front line combatant, it needs to be somewhat more resilient. It has the armored prow and increased turret to accomplish this. It needs to keep speed with the rest of its squadron, and it's 20cm speed stops it from outrunning its squadmates. Last, it needs firepower that is effective in the same arks as its contemporaries, in this case frontal torpedoes and broadsides.
The reason the Voss triumverate are not that popular is that they do not provide quite the punch required to replace a cruiser, even if they are cheap. Most people are willing to pay the points for more firepower and significant resilience. So we need to make them dangerous and cheap enough that it becomes a decision of resilience vs. firepower. Or just cheap enough that the points spent elsewhere make up for the deficiency.
-
Earlier in the vote for these ships, I did propose the addition of a second shield for the Voss series to aid their longevity as pocket cruisers/ships of the line.
Now these are being debated again, resilience is being thrown up as a sticking point, would this be an acceptable change? If we are going for 110/115 mark, would a rise to 120/125 be in order again for this? Wouldn't be over powering if we make the 6+ front/45o an option. Can people really use these without the prow?
Doesn't stop me taking the Dauntless/Emperor.
Thoughts?
-
The endeavour cruisers are, as has also been mentioned, designed to fill the role of a mini ship of the line. So what does it require to fit that role?
It was mostly accepted a while back the the addition of the 6+ prow was all they needed to fill this role at 120 points using their existing stats. The change to 110 points and the option to give them the 6+ prow in trade for the loss of turning was the FAQ2010 solution. The simplest thing to do with these is leave them as is and just let them add the 6+ prow for +10 points. I think that particular option was brought up then as well but didn't get implemented.
Earlier in the vote for these ships, I did propose the addition of a second shield for the Voss series to aid their longevity as pocket cruisers/ships of the line.
Just no. The only reason the marines get this is they are forced to rely on the SC. I really can't see justifying an extra shield on an IN CL.
-
I've read stories about people who fielded a fleet soley of Endeavour's, Endurances and 'bfg-forbid' Defiants.
They made such a visual impact (lots of models with high turnrate) that the enemy fleet lost easily.
I also think it isn't about adding 1 voss CL to your line, it is adding the jigsaw (well... two piece puzzle) of Endeavour & Endurance. Add those to a Lunar in a Squadron, field them behind the cruiser so the cruiser can take the first shots, if the cruisers gets tackled manoeuvre your CL's to a favourable position.
Then again... I have used 1 Defiant in an AdMech fleet and it was horrible. I have used 1 Endeavour in an AdMech fleet and it was great!
-
I also think it isn't about adding 1 voss CL to your line, it is adding the jigsaw (well... two piece puzzle) of Endeavour & Endurance. Add those to a Lunar in a Squadron, field them behind the cruiser so the cruiser can take the first shots, if the cruisers gets tackled manoeuvre your CL's to a favourable position.
Can't argue with that.
As for the whole speed option, who here plays RT? Are the Voss series mentioned in any of the books? If so, how does their speed compare to a Lunars? Is it significant enough to warrant speed 25 in BFG?
My RPing days are long behind me so I have no real reason to shell out for the books, but if they have information we can use for BFG, shouldn't we use it?
-
Hey,
Rogue Trader values:
(First value = speed / second value = manoeuvrability)
Sword Class Frigate : 8 // +20
Dauntless CL : 7 // +15
Lunar (Gothic/Dominator/Tyrant): 5 // +10
Avenger (base for other CG's expect see below) : 5 // +5
Repulsive : 5 // +8
Exorcist : 4 // +4
Overlord : 5 // +10
Chalice CB : 6 // +10
Armageddon : 5 // +10
Conquest Star Galleon 4 // +5
Ambition : 5 // +12
Dictator : 5 // +8
Endeavour/Endurance: 6 // +12
Defiant: 6 // +12
Falchion: 8 // +17
Iconoclast 10 // +25
///
So ya see, the Voss CL's are stepped between Lunar and Dauntless.
-
Mind you, in RT light cruisers use the same turning rules as full cruisers, so the comparison is not quite accurate. Not to mention some vessels are presented have certain components present, even in their navy configurations that automatically increase some of those configurations.
-
Well, in BFG light cruisers use the same turning rules as full cruisers as well, so? ::)
The pre-installed components are not altering the speed/turn rates as far as I can see.
-
Are you looking in the RT core rulebook, Into the Storm, Battlefleet Koronus, Edge of the Abyss, Stars of Inequity, Hostile Aquisitions or the Navis Primer? Outside of Soul Reaver I don't own any of the adventures, but I do own every other book and several engine types increase the speed of the vessel, particularly on the Viper scout sloop and Sprint Traders.
-
Are you looking in the RT core rulebook, Into the Storm, Battlefleet Koronus, Edge of the Abyss, Stars of Inequity, Hostile Aquisitions or the Navis Primer? Outside of Soul Reaver I don't own any of the adventures, but I do own every other book and several engine types increase the speed of the vessel, particularly on the Viper scout sloop and Sprint Traders.
Best Quality Engines or anything that gives you the modified drive archeotech upgrade (Planetbound for Millenia/Reliquary of Mars) can also push the speed up.
Either of those also let you take Augmented Retro Thrusters, which increase maneuverability.
The other thing is that the Defiant, unlike other CL carriers, has a Str 2 LB per side as opposed to Str 1. (Weirdly, both BFG and RT GENERALLY have the same Str for weapons.)
A little quick work and...
DEFIANT Class Light Cruiser
NAME Lenore
TURRET RATING 3
SHIELDS Single Void Shield [C:BEST]
ARMOUR 20
SPEED 7
HULL INTEGRITY 60
MANOEUVRABILITY 17
DETECTION 20
SPACE AVAILABLE 63
POWER AVAILABLE: 66
SPACE Left Over 0
POWER USED 64
Skill Test Modifiers
Navigation/Warp +10, Social +20, Investigation +10, Intimidate (Social) +10 w/Active Hymn-Casters, CMD/Hit&Run +20, CMD/Boarding Action +20, CMD/Hit&Run (Def) +25, CMD/Boarding Action (Def) +25, Command (Attack Craft ) +5
Crew Disposition: Fanatical
Crew Max 100%
Crew Quality Competent (35)
Morale Max 108% (Current) 100%
Normal Operations (Morale)
Attack Craft Rating +2
Achievement Bonuses: Trade + 200 Crime + 125 Creed + 100 Military + 100 Explore + 150
Essential Components
Jovian Pattern Class 3 Drive [Modified/Archeotech], Strelov 2 Warp Engine (CL,C) [C:BEST], Warpsbane Hull, Flight Command Bridge (CL,C,CB,CG; Tests to ready new squadrons automatically pass) [C:BEST], M-1.r Life Sustainer (+1 Morale Loss) [C:BEST], M-201b Auger Array [C:BEST], Clan-Kin Quarters (All morale loss reduced by 1, minimum 1) [C:BEST]
Supplemental Components
Compartmentalized Cargo Hold, Barracks, Augmented Retro Thrusters, Extended Supply Vaults (Extended Repairs add 1 additional HI point), Temple Shrine to the God Emperor, Librarium Vault, Trophy Room, Observation Dome, Broad-Band Hymn-Casters (Enemy must make Diff. -10 Tech-Use Test for Vox/Comms) (External, 30VU), Empyrean Mantle (When 'Silent Running' it is 2 Degrees HARDER to detect this Vessel)(External), Crew Improvements: Best (+3 Morale, +5 Quality), Ostentatious Displays of Wealth (Best Quality), Starchart Collection (-1d5+5Days Warp Travel Time, Min. 1 day), Pilot's Chamber, Small Craft Repair Deck, Flak Turrets (-10 Detection Penalty when in use), Power Ram (External, +1d10 Ramming Damage),
Background Package
Planetbound for Millennia (+10 Mvr w/in 5VU of a planet)
Weapons
Godsbane Lance [Strength: 1, Damage:1d10+2, Crit Rating: 3, Range: 12] Location:PROW
Jovian Pattern Landing Bay [Strength: 2, Damage:x+x, Crit Rating: --, Range: ] Location:STARBOARD
Jovian Pattern Landing Bay [Strength: 2, Damage:x+x, Crit Rating: --, Range: ] Location:PORT
I've read stories about people who fielded a fleet soley of Endeavour's, Endurances and 'bfg-forbid' Defiants.
They made such a visual impact (lots of models with high turnrate) that the enemy fleet lost easily.
I've heard of this too, but never seen it. They usually die to the first Eldar/Chaos/Necrons fleet they meet. They do pretty well against Tau though.
-
@BaronIveagh I know what can do it, i'm merely pointing out that some ships (particularly in battlefleet koronus) come stock with components/upgrades that push their stock stats up, resulting in a higher stat, even on a typical navy version.
Don't worry, I have played my fair share of Fantasy Flight Games: From Dark Heresy to Only War I have played AND GM'ed several campaigns of each, so I consider myself somewhat experienced... ;)
-
Never played them, but own the corebook and battlefleet koronus (I gave them tips, ideas, without me you would have had less torpedoes ;) l
-
Haha, nice. Interesting fact you were probably aware of: Secutor Monitor Cruiser (a light cruiser from Into the Storm) is light cruiser with slower speed an maneuverability than most light cruisers, but has a dorsal mount (unlike normal light cruisers) and has the option of taking Full cruiser shielding (i.e. two). It's and AdMech design they developed because AdMech fleets need to be self-sufficient in their explorations, and they needed a light cruiser that could explore for decades (as light cruisers are designed to) but still woop ass if required. Brought it up because it's a similar principle to what we are trying to make the voss into.
-
The vote is up for the Endeavor and Endurance. What should be done about the Defiant, if anything?
-
I think the Defiant would be just fine as it is right now at:
6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+, 2 turrets
P/S Launchbays (1 each)
Prow torpedoes 2
Prow wbs F/L/R/ 30cm 2
... for 110pts. I could also see it with an additional 1 wb added to its prow (3 total)
-
Why did the defiant trade the s2 lances for WB?
-
Because then two of them defeats the Dictator in pretty much every way then. You could take a Dictator with 6 torps and 6wb on each side, OR, you could take 2 Defiants with 4 freakin F/L/R lances and 4 torpedoes with the same launch capacity and 4 more hits. If we want to take lances, it will need to be more than 110pts, definitely. Don't forget the 90* turn. The only downside is the 1 shield before taking damage before 2.
-
It should have 4 prow batteries for 110pts.
-
I could get on board for that.
-
Four wb and no torpedoes? The real problem with the Defiant is still its craptastic broadside. Short of a radical solution or a greatly increased price i dont see that changing.
-
Because then two of them defeats the Dictator in pretty much every way then. You could take a Dictator with 6 torps and 6wb on each side, OR, you could take 2 Defiants with 4 freakin F/L/R lances and 4 torpedoes with the same launch capacity and 4 more hits. If we want to take lances, it will need to be more than 110pts, definitely. Don't forget the 90* turn. The only downside is the 1 shield before taking damage before 2.
playing devils advocate here, but there is a bit more to it than what you posted. For starters their largest wave size is 2 AC unless you squadron the Defiants and place them in base contact. As a squadron and with a single shield they will be more susceptible to bracing and easier to cripple than the Dictator. The Defiant also has equivalent firepower to the dictator (4lances = 12wb. dictator=12wb) but with the benefit of focusing in a single arc. If you are using the 210 point value for a dictator, the defiants clock in 10 points more than a dictator. If you price the defiant at 115 that jumps to 20 points more which should be more than adequate.
-
@ Andrew,
no, 4 batteries + 2 torps on the prow.
The Defiant can do this as power conduits run differently compared to the Endeavour/Endurance.
I mean, two lances on the prow is even weirder.
-
No, leave the prow armament on the Defiant the same as the other two. Price it at 100 pts. If you want to price it higher then give it a 3rd turret or a-boats or both and call it 110 pts.
-
With 4 batteries +2 torps it's not entirely usleless when it fails its reload order. I'd vote for that. True, pair of them could focus more firepower than Dictator, but they only have single shield [for both, assuming base contact to launch waves of 4, like Dictator can] and start losing effectivenes after 3 hits, comparing to Dictator's 4. Plus, Dictator has stronger torpedo salvo.
2 LFR lances would be over the top not in comparison with Dictator [both 2 Defiants and Dictator have their own poblems, roughly balancing each other] but with Endurance - Defiant would do its job nearly as good.
I like the idea of Defiant which apart from being supporting carrier can deal relatively solid punch to the front. Gives more reasons to use it.
-
So tell me, why can the Defiant get more guns on its prow than the other 2? This notion baffles me. Particularly as it's described as having bugger all shooty business going on.
Obviously the best design would be to have it identical to the other 2 variants but with 2AC per side at +20 pts. We just can't do this because it gives the IN a full carrier waaaaaaaaay too cheaply. The beardy ordnance spam would be horrific.
So just leave its launch bays at 1/side and drop its cost. I am a fan of the a-boat + turret idea to make up for the loss. The turret because it's a carrier and they typically have more and the a-boats because it has the extra room to be able to store them and house the requisite men, since it has only half strength bays.
These are ok sort of gimmicks, but for this type of underpowered ship the idea is simply "cheap".
The alternative route would be to give it 2AC/side at 130 pts (Endeavour + 20) and some drawbacks. These could be things such as: giving a -1 to RO checks for any squadron it's in (including when it's by itself); limiting its launch capability in any one turn to 2f/2b maximum, rather than 4f or 4b (so it has 1 fighter bay and 1 bomber bay per side) and; drastically limiting its use, ideally to 0 per fleet but possibly 1 per fleet if people really insisted. Maybe all three. Possibly some others too. I myself really like the 0 per fleet limitation.
-
I dont like the idea of them having different prow armament even tho I understand the reasoning, and actually with all of the equipment required to keep flight wings operational I would say the power requirements for the flight decks would be pretty high. Clearly not as high as a dedicated Lance battery but then the Lances pull right from the main plasma core. Weapons batteries would have a significantly lower power requirement than the Lances also.
So radical idea:
Armament Range/Speed Firepower/Str Fire Arc
*Port/Starboard Launch Bays Furies 30cm 1+d3 squadrons -
Starhawks 20cm
* Port/Starboard Launch Bays: The Defiants launch bays will be compleatly disabled on either a Port Armament Damaged or Starboard Armament Damaged critical hit. This is still only one weapon emplacement, the most you can launch per turn is 1+d3 squadrons not 1+d3 squadrons per side.
-
Random bays? Na?
What *IF* we do this:
the Defiant does get 4 AC in total, but only fighters.
or only a max of 2 bombers and a max of 2 fighters? (But a wave of 4 with mix 2/2 is possible).
-
Whats wrong with random bays? I think its pretty fitting for the ship :).
-
...their randomness, mostly ;) You're never sure how effective the ship will be, makes planning harder.
Ok, you convinced me about prow weaponry. Should stay the same on all three cruisers.
I wouldn't give it more than 2 launch bays, possibilities of AC spam would be horryfying this way. Maybe make its ordnance more reliable? +1 Ld when reloading? For 105 points maybe?
-
1 Launch bay per side, 2 torps, 2 WB FLR, a-boats, +1 turret. I would go with that.
-
I think 100pts without the assault boats and extra turret would be fine also.
Where do all the other light cruisers fit in with this then? The Dauntless has never been over priced but its seriously starting to feel under defended for its cost. The Siluria feels even worse as its under defended and under gunned.
-
I would support that but I think the +5 for a turret would be better in my opinion. I think it would match the extra turret for carriers idea as well and it wouldn't trump the Dictator in AC/pts.
-
I could see the defiant at 110 with the extra turret. It follows the pattern of IN carriers having a premium.
I wouldn't touch the other CL. The dauntless has never had a problem and the lack of defense has always been a downside for the consirable speed, maneuverability, and firepower it brings for the price.
If the dauntless is suddenly feeling off then it indicates that we have power creep happening and we should rethink this change rather than change other ships.
-
I have doubts about 3rd turret. In itself it's ok, but seeing that both in Bakka and Admech it would have 4, while One of the Admech gifts can raise it to 6... I'm not sure if it's right for a light cruiser.
Just my opinion, though, I can live with extra turret.
I'd also be against touching Dauntless - it's fine as it is. If tests show that it's became weaker than Voss cruisers, it means they need nerfing - Dauntless doesn't need improving.
-
I will have to play some more games with the Endeavor line but so far, I don't suspect the Dauntless will feel off at all, especially with their immense prow firepower. I support 105 with the additional turret/ABs or the 110 with the additional turret and ABs.
-
The extra turret will give it 4 in the AdMech fleet.... zing.
-
No the Dauntless should remain the same but we definitely need to test these changes to make sure theyre accurate to the Dauntless. Although the Daunt does have a powerful prow its still pretty equal to the Voss's in overall firepower. The problem to me is does the extra speed really compare to the extra turret and prow armor? Hum....
Anyway on the Bakka question the Defiant wouldnt be able to go past 3 turrets anyway, being that its not from Bakka it cant take the Bakka upgrades.
Admech Defiant could get to 6 with FDT tho o_O.
-
The strike range of the Dauntless is what counts then. It is a nice 55cm, compared to the 50cm of the Voss CL. And 3 lances pop the prow armour, so in a 1:1 duel the lance Dauntless does not care in that regards.
And 6 torp Dauntless has such an aggressive attack strength the Voss CL just cannot compare to.
-
So do we want to go with 105 plus the turret?
-
That seems fine, Id be more inclined to price it the same as the others tho especially considering that even with its bays being half str they should still be worth more than a full str weapons or lance battery.
-
110pts, 1 Launch bay per side, 2 torps, 2 WB FLR, +1 turret. Good?
-
Sure
-
I'm fine with that. However, if the notion of a 4 turret AM Defiant is a bit iffy (not to mention a 6 turret FDT monster which is easily achievable since you only need to roll up one FDT and just assign it to your Defiant), then possibly go the a-boat route rather than the turret route. Not as powerful certainly, but I think slightly more credible since it gives a reason for the lower than expected bay strength. Besides, at 2 turrets the Endeavour series CLs are already slightly over the odds.
To reiterate though, I'm fine with it. The Defiant is an annoying piece of shit and I could certainly live with this slightest of discrepancies to put it to bed.
-
The Defiant is an annoying piece of shit and I could certainly live with this slightest of discrepancies to put it to bed.
CLASSIC Sig. Love it. I put up the vote for the additional turret one. If people prefer the A-boat one, vote "no, needs more work."
-
What *IF* we do this:
the Defiant does get 4 AC in total, but only fighters.
or only a max of 2 bombers and a max of 2 fighters? (But a wave of 4 with mix 2/2 is possible).
I say we just break down and give it four Lbs like it's current fluff has. This also brings it into line with the other Voss LCs as '1/2 a regular IN cruiser'. (Since some of you are hot to hide behind 'what they're meant to be'.)
And before anyone has fantasies about AC spam, they're still limited to 2 per 500 points. If you're going for AC spam, they barely edge out Dictator and don't come CLOSE to SCs.
-
True, the model does have full launch bay section, and numbers are restricted. I, personally, wouldn't mind it for the Navy, but if Admech could still use it without restriction, they could reach Tau level of ordnance saturation. With better Ld for effective reloading. Scary.
So while 4 bays could be tested [i know i will], it would probably require restricting Defiant numbers for Mechanicus.
-
True, the model does have full launch bay section, and numbers are restricted. I, personally, wouldn't mind it for the Navy, but if Admech could still use it without restriction, they could reach Tau level of ordnance saturation. With better Ld for effective reloading. Scary.
Admech and IN can already do Tau levels of ord saturation, you just have to abuse the right rules. The changes that BFG:R makes to Grand Cruisers make a few IN lists brutal as far as ord goes.
-
Perhaps we should revisit the cgs to rectify that...
-
At 110 O_o??? Even at 130 you would still be able to drop 12 launch at less then 500, thats a whole ships worth more then it is now. 730 pts for 20, 885 for 24....
Not considering crazy gcs. If the Grands are comming out bad maybe they do need to be revisited. Post up some stuff in the test thread?
-
Revisiting a certain CG and dropping some launch bays is something I would agree on. ::)
-
if Admech could still use it without restriction, they could reach Tau level of ordnance saturation. With better Ld for effective reloading. Scary.
So while 4 bays could be tested [i know i will], it would probably require restricting Defiant numbers for Mechanicus.
Well, like you state, that sounds like a problem in AdMech fleet list and not the Defiant itself. 4 bays with restrictions sounds cleaner and more sane approach in my opinion if consistency is more important (for me it is not). However I am fine with 2 bays provided she's dropped in price to make her worthwhile. The 130 in the original stats was just plain overpriced-110 feels about right if you take a fleet restriction (see end paragraph).
Interesting idea on the fighter only-no bomber but seems harder to keep track of (defined as more being greater than 0 additional rules to also keep in mind when playing no matter how easy/small they are).
Personally I'd actually tie their numbers to other ships of the general style. It's already in the fluff that her sister classes are usually in mixed squadrons so I think we can logically extrapolate this to the defiant as well. Something like "you may take 1 defiant or endurance for every 2 endevour in a fleet" or something along those lines, to keep the beardiness potentialaility matrix level down to playable levels. (IIRC the original BF Armegedon fleet only had a limitation of "not more than")
-
In Armada it is: 1 Defiant or Endurance per Endeavour.
-
Cool my crusty brain isn't useless then. ;D
I'd like to see a 2:1 ratio myself.
-
Revisiting a certain CG and dropping some launch bays is something I would agree on. ::)
Coming from the man that wanted the HA to remove AC from the game, that's not surprising.
My thoughts:
120pts
25cm
+5 armor
2 str 2 LBs.
+1 ldr (maybe swappable for a str 4 prow torp, but not sold on that.)
3 turrets
no +6 prow
1 per 500 pts or fraction thereof.
pros: heavy LB
Cons: No direct fire weapon is a serious liability.
-
Why not just keep the same limitations in admech that the endeavor series has elsewhere instead of reworking the limits?
-
I dont think the Admech would really need the limit if they stay at 2 lb, after all the biggest downfall to taking Defiants is your taking Defiants ::).
-
Wait, we were really seriously considering 4lb on a light cruiser?
-
Some might be. Not me! 8)
-
If spamming is becoming a concern, how 'bout we re-introduce the original Armada limit?
Combined numbers of Endurance/Defiance cannot exceed number of Endeavours in your fleet?
And no to 4 LB's :P
-
Revisiting a certain CG and dropping some launch bays is something I would agree on. ::)
Coming from the man that wanted the HA to remove AC from the game, that's not surprising.
My thoughts:
120pts
25cm
+5 armor
2 str 2 LBs.
+1 ldr (maybe swappable for a str 4 prow torp, but not sold on that.)
3 turrets
no +6 prow
1 per 500 pts or fraction thereof.
pros: heavy LB
Cons: No direct fire weapon is a serious liability.
You cannot possibly be considering a 4AC CL with a +1 to reload.
-
Revisiting a certain CG and dropping some launch bays is something I would agree on. ::)
Coming from the man that wanted the HA to remove AC from the game, that's not surprising.
Yes, really from someone who agreed on lowering the prize for the Dictator, make the Oberon better, lower the Styx some more, making the Defiant playable, etc. ::)
Only way I could accept 4lb is if it its fighters only.
-
Revisiting a certain CG and dropping some launch bays is something I would agree on. ::)
Coming from the man that wanted the HA to remove AC from the game, that's not surprising.
Yes, really from someone who agreed on lowering the prize for the Dictator, make the Oberon better, lower the Styx some more, making the Defiant playable, etc. ::)
Only way I could accept 4lb is if it its fighters only.
Fighters only would make it awefully hard for them to have destroyed any ork ships ::). 2 bays is plenty for the price. The extra built in turret will make them less than worthless and the prow weapons now complement the other cruisers theyre likely to be paired with. It fits the roll, it fits the fluff, its not overpriced, and its not a sure pick to take two of these over a Dictator. What else does it really need?
-
What else does it really need?
Some playtest reports in which it performs well. ;)
-
Well maybe we should be working on that as opposed to stuffing two more launch bays in it ;).
-
Yep.
Also, it was Andy Chambers who said, afterwards, that they should have dropped Attack Craft from the game.
Tidbit from the past.
-
it fits the fluff
Minor detail: No it doesn't. Defiants are actually noted as being unusual for having the same carrier capacity as a Dictator. Though, also that some battlefleets 'do not know what to do with it'.
It's actually statted separate from the other Voss hulls in BFK.
You cannot possibly be considering a 4AC CL with a +1 to reload.
Yes, what was I thinking? Imagine the precedent! Next thing you know, we might have an 8 LB battleship that does that with barely any rules restrictions at all! [/sarcasm]
The reality is that with out any direct fire weapons, only +5 armor and CL HP, it's not nearly as overpowered as you think, but it is an excellent baby flat top.
-
Overpowerd? maybe not. Out of character? Most definitely.
-
Minor detail: No it doesn't. Defiants are actually noted as being unusual for having the same carrier capacity as a Dictator. Though, also that some battlefleets 'do not know what to do with it'.
It's actually statted separate from the other Voss hulls in BFK.
In which document are Defiants said to have the carrier capacity of a Dictator? And is that document available online? I'm not trying to challenge it, I'm just ignorant of this particular factoid.
Regardless, it got me thinking: The number of launch bays a ship has represents not really the maximum attack craft capacity (something which can never really show up in the game) but more the speed with which those craft can be deployed - how many of its X number of squadrons the ship can deploy in the 30-60 minute time window represented by one game turn.
If the Defiant had 2 launch bays, and the special rule which doubled its attack craft control cap to 4, that could reasonably represent something with as high a capacity as a Dictator, but still not enough attack craft punch in one turn to upset anyone.
On second thoughts, the control cap still doesn't represent theoretical maximum 'capacity' well, only the number of squadrons the air traffic controllers on the ship can handle simultaneously, which is likely much less than the capacity. Maybe the maximum launch bay capacity is something which needs no real representation in the game, like the capacity of a Leman Russ tank to carry spare battle cannon shells.
Anyway, just my thoughts, for what they're worth...
-
Unfortunately, linking to a pdf of Battlefleet Koronus from FFG would probably be a banning offense since it is still in print and not very old yet either. I can say that you can read up on the more recent fluff and crunch there. Though, when they changed it, a lot of people's reactions was 'is this a misprint' but no, it was actually what they deliberately decided to do, with Andy Chambers as one of the writers on the book.
Overpowerd? maybe not. Out of character? Most definitely.
*shrug* Why should that bother anyone at this point? Very very few of these changes that have been made were 'needed'. Almost all of them were to change the game to more closely fit a given playstyle.
-
Unfortunately, linking to a pdf of Battlefleet Koronus from FFG would probably be a banning offense since it is still in print and not very old yet either. I can say that you can read up on the more recent fluff and crunch there. Though, when they changed it, a lot of people's reactions was 'is this a misprint' but no, it was actually what they deliberately decided to do, with Andy Chambers as one of the writers on the book.
Could you post page numbers? All I can see is that the Dictator and Defiant have the same number of launch modules.
-
BFK does also state that the Defiants are usually understrength.
-
On BFK, the stats of the Defiant are printed seperate to the Endurance/Endevour. But the Exorcist is also printed seperate and the Avenger as the base for the gunnnery variants.
-
On BFK, the stats of the Defiant are printed seperate to the Endurance/Endevour. But the Exorcist is also printed seperate and the Avenger as the base for the gunnnery variants.
I've never really understood what they were doing with GCs and BCs in BFK. The Defiant gets the Jovian landing bay, which it normally could not take as a light cruiser, at a slightly reduced cost so that it fits, but why the Exorcist gets it I do not know
Could you post page numbers? All I can see is that the Dictator and Defiant have the same number of launch modules.
Not off the top of my head (IIRC it's something Victoria Horne says in one of her notes, but I could be wrong). However, I might point out they not only have the same number of modules, they have the same launch bay strength, two Jovian pattern landing bays (str 2 each). (LCs are normally limited to the jovian pattern escort bay [str 1].)
BFK does also state that the Defiants are usually understrength.
I don't remember that being in there. I do remember that Hawk, a Defiant, is currently attached to Battlefleet Koronus because Battlefleet Calixis has no idea what to do with it or how to deploy a carrier.
(I have to wonder how it is that IN manages to never, ever act on the fact that Gothics do badly outside mass fleet actions, and carriers do extremely well all over. It's astonishingly stupid that they will even comment on the fact in the fluff, but never ever act on it.)
-
Because the Gothic does perform on its own?
The comment from Horne on the Defiant is what I think a gimmick remark from Andy Chambers based upon what the community made of the Defiant. Because it is exactly what it is: no one (IN) knows what to do with vessel (since it was crap ;) ).
I shall look into the BFK book.
-
The IN does tend to think a little backwards. Their mindset seems alot like the actual gameplay really, theyre stuck somewhere between where we were in ww1 and ww2. Thats why theres not really any true "carriers" in the fleet, no one wants to risk moving away from what they know works.
-
The IN does tend to think a little backwards. Their mindset seems alot like the actual gameplay really, theyre stuck somewhere between where we were in ww1 and ww2. Thats why theres not really any true "carriers" in the fleet, no one wants to risk moving away from what they know works.
By 'we' I'm assuming you mean England. Everyone else had a pretty good idea by, oh, 1930. (Though, in the US case, in fighting in the Navy muddled the issue, Bakka's fluff being a not too subtle jab at the US from that period, right down to the disastrous battle where carriers make it out but the big gun ships go down in flames [Circe])
In fact, in fluff Bakka has been very badly mangled numerous times due to a lack of carriers including The Fang (Space Wolves), Circe (nids) and Bakka itself in both 980.M41 (Red Corsairs assault the Navy fortress to considerable effect until Huron is nearly killed by a Grey Knight strike team teleporting onto the bridge of his battlebarge [sound familiar?]) and 999.M41 (Dark Eldar destroy the IN anchorage at Bakka).
And that's the baffling part is that they do know carriers work, and work quite well. (Remember that the 'current' IN fleet is relatively new, with Lunars only coming into service in M37, though the Mars is somewhat older). The 'Big Gun Lobby' would not only have been on Bucharis' side during the Plague of Unbelief (and thus killed by any number of loyalist organizations or as part of the general uprising against all his officers), but due to a serious plot hole, would probably not have existed at all. Remember that at the time, they would still have been using the 'old' IN fleet aka the Chaos Fleet.
One of the mainstays of which is the Styx, which given the time it takes to complete a battleship, would still have been very much in service at the time of the 'Young School's ride to power.
Because the Gothic does perform on its own?
According to fluff it performs poorly during the Gothic War.
With Defiant we've buffed a dozen different ways either for BFG:R or for FAQ 2010.
It continues to suck.
It's time to address the Elephant in the room and try giving it 4 lbs like every other game system it appears in does.
-
Let the elephant be the elephant and ditch the 2lb Defiant to 100pts. ;)
Oh yeah, that gothic war bit about the Gothic :(
Bad IN players who influenced that. 8)
-
Let the elephant be the elephant and ditch the 2lb Defiant to 100pts. ;)
It's been made cheaper before. It didn't help. Let me ask it this way: Why does a cruiser have the same number of launch bays as an escort, which costs half as much and is not limited to 2 per 500 pts.
Granted, the cruiser is marginally faster and has more HP.
Oh yeah, that gothic war bit about the Gothic :(
Bad IN players who influenced that. 8)
;D Don't look at me, I have Gothics, but I use Lunars.
-
Or we could shoot the elephant and mount it's head on a wall, removing the difficulties with a live elephant entirely.
The problem we face is that with no change it sucks, with point changes it still sucks and 4ac is just awkward for a cl not to mention starts to step on the toes of the full carriers due to point cost comparative to using the dictator or emperor for equivalent ac.
To answer your question, the escort dies on a 5+ to a torpedo, two lance hits, or on a 4+ to an AB. On top of that it gets a -1 to ld when it tries to reload and has far worse turning for an escort sized ship. It basically sucks worse :)
-
Actually I was refering to the US issues.
I would be ok with the current stats +2 launch for ~150ish pts.
-
I'm entirety fine with a 2 launch bay Defiant. I think the profile is not cut out for solo deviants. The defiant, as it is now, is best squadroned and partnered with either another defiant or an IN cruiser.
-
I'm also ok with 4 lb's... A light cruiser can have 4 Lb's in the same way a styx or a jovian can have 6 lb's.
if with 2 Lb's it now costs 110 pts, with 4 lb's it should cost 136 pts.....
-
I'm also ok with 4 lb's... A light cruiser can have 4 Lb's in the same way a styx or a jovian can have 6 lb's.
if with 2 Lb's it now costs 110 pts, with 4 lb's it should cost 136 pts.....
Let's say 140 to split the difference and it seems reasonable to me as well.
-
You would be allowing the IN to have a massive ordnance boost. For 840 pts, you can have launch capacity 24. I don't know of a ship that can beat that except the Explorer. This is not fitting for the Imperial Navy at all. :o
-
You would be allowing the IN to have a massive ordnance boost. For 840 pts, you can have launch capacity 24. I don't know of a ship that can beat that except the Explorer. This is not fitting for the Imperial Navy at all. :o
You might want to look at the Segmentum Solar list in Armada. Ordinance is what IN is all about, when it's not about Nova Cannons. According to fluff AC are quite popular in Ultima (and Tempestus before the Gareox Incident) and fleet carriers exist in Pacificus and Obscurus, though were never statted (unless you want to use the Nemesis).
-
2 Dictators have lc8 for the same price as 3 Defiants at lc12. Yes, there are differences on firepower, durability, and maneuverability, but this is REALLY stepping on the Dictators toes here.
Also, show me some sources that say that ordnance is what the IN is all about. I think is would be fair to say that IN is all about torpedoes and nova cannons.
-
2 Dictators have lc8 for the same price as 3 Defiants at lc12. Yes, there are differences on firepower, durability, and maneuverability, but this is REALLY stepping on the Dictators toes here.
Also, show me some sources that say that ordnance is what the IN is all about. I think is would be fair to say that IN is all about torpedoes and nova cannons.
If you're ignoring those three stats, as I've said, you can do that with escort carriers now.
And if you mean AC you shouldn't say 'Ordinance'.
That said, before I start on fluff, are you a) Only Blue Book counts, B) Blue Book and Armada count, C) Blue Book, Armada, other codexs, and BFGM, D) BL, Blue Book, Armada, other codexs and BFGM, or E) FFG, BL, BLue Book, Armada, other codexs and BFGM count?
Because once you pick one, you can't go back on it and say 'That doesn't count' if you said it was permitted earlier. (Can't tell I've had to deal with this question before, can you?)
-
Before this battle continues, I have a few points to make:
1) 2LB Defiant does not really excel at anything: it is weak in every department. If we keep it at two launch bays we only have two realistic options. One is to lower it's price. The second is too increase it's effectiveness in some way and increase the price.
2) 4LB Defiant is pretty hefty AC. IN has fleets with lots of it, but at 4 LB this thing does become an anomaly, the kind that drives people away, even those who are okay with BFG:R.
3) With standard IN hulls we can't make a 3LB CL can we? If it was possible I would suggest that route.
I think the biggest item of contention over this damn vessel is that it has no real established role. Need a fast torpedo volley in your enemies flank? The Torp Dauntless will serve you better. Need a defensive ordnance vessel with fleet support weapons? You are better off investing in a Mars or Dominion Battlecruiser. Want a combined ordnance vessel? The Dictator fills that niche nicely.
Stats as they are, the only possible role of the Defiant is as a cheap defensive ordnance tool for low ordnance fleets. Idea being you can stick a few of these in your various squadrons to give you the AC you need to pursue your broadside dreams. To do that it has to be dirt cheap.
Of course its fluff describes it as being a good pirate hunter, but it does not have the loadout to effectively combat escort squadrons. In FFG's Battlefleet Koronus the Defiant has small launch bays on its sides (similar to our 2lb defiant) along with a small torpedo volley (also similar) and an open slot for....oh wait, it never says. The only weapon in that mount that could make it useful would be a L/F/R lance, but some people might loathe it's bloated prow if that were to happens.
If someone can pigeonhole a role for this vessel that everyone can agree on it will really help this discussion.
-
I don't care, just give some good evidence to support your claim. Any official sources.
Either way, I think stepping the Dictator's toes is stupid and we shouldn't give the IN an option to out LC almost all other fleets.
-
I'm not against the lance addition.
-
To me Imperial Navy keywords are:
torpedoes
prow armour
steamroller
nova cannon
But with the note one can play a carrier fleet or a broadside fleet as much as he wished and the rules do provide in that.
-
I'm right with you Horizon. I just don't like they this Dictator will put the Defiant right at the top of the most potent carrier point/LB list.
-
Well even with 4 bays its a suboptimal pick. With a high coat and the right restrictions it can be useable and balanced.
What if it had a limit of 1/500 instead of 2?
-
Well even with 4 bays its a suboptimal pick. With a high coat and the right restrictions it can be useable and balanced.
What if it had a limit of 1/500 instead of 2?
The restrictions as they are now are hardly restrictions. You can still have 6 in a 1500pt fleet. How is it a suboptimal pick?
-
1 shield, 6 hits, 2 wb... Its not tough enough to hang with the fleet and it doesnt have the range to be a support option.
Convoy escort to answer an earlier question.
-
6 Defiants + 2 Emperors, lol.
Or Defiants with 4 lb in an AdMech fleet...
-
Its optimal because it's primary weapons, 4 launch bays) are not worried about range. It doesn't have to hang with the fleet. Having 3 Defiants hanging a ways behind your fleet can still have 12 bombers out at a time. Also, at this point, it's more durable than a dauntless so it can hang with the front line more than a dauntless durability-wise.
I would prefer to give it lances in place of the WBo on dorsal instead of going to 4 lbs.
Have people thought through 3lbs? I don't think that's all that bad of an idea. It would take a special rule though but I don't think it would be all that hard to do. It could be 4 torps 3 lbs. The dorsal wbs could have been refitted for launch openings. Yes, it seems different, but I think workable.
-
6 Defiants + 2 Emperors, lol.
Or Defiants with 4 lb in an AdMech fleet...
In a 2k? Certainly not 1500...
Its optimal because it's primary weapons, 4 launch bays) are not worried about range. It doesn't have to hang with the fleet. Having 3 Defiants hanging a ways behind your fleet can still have 12 bombers out at a time. Also, at this point, it's more durable than a dauntless so it can hang with the front line more than a dauntless durability-wise.
Attack craft do care about range. If your forced to keep them back you cant react as quickly, let them get too close and theyre braced too easily. For that price you can have an Emp with Sharks, ld9 guaranteed and a re-roll. The Emp can also throw some support.
I would prefer to give it lances in place of the WBo on dorsal instead of going to 4 lbs.
so back to square one?
Have people thought through 3lbs? I don't think that's all that bad of an idea. It would take a special rule though but I don't think it would be all that hard to do. It could be 4 torps 3 lbs. The dorsal wbs could have been refitted for launch openings. Yes, it seems different, but I think workable.
port/starboard combined i post something similar earlier (random) but i think a restriction to 1/500 with 4bays would be simpler
-
As for the emperor vs 2 defiants, yes, the emperor does have those bonuses but pays 85 points for the upgrades.
I would rather go back to square 1 than have 4 lbs. If we end up going with 4 launch bays, we should make it 1/750.
What would you like to see it as? 4lb, 2 torps, 2wbs?
-
Actually Emp+ Sharks+ fleet admiral vs 3 Defiants @140.
Really Im ok with it as is right now (needs testing of course). Im just running ideas out since it seems thats not the direction others would like to see. We could go from the fluff and give it 2 torps and 0 weapons.
Why 1/750? Its not really that good ;).
-
I don't care, just give some good evidence to support your claim. Any official sources.
*shrug* Ok, E it is.
Blue Book, page 112: 'As the demand for supporting attack craft grew, a number of badly damaged Lunars were reconfigured as Dictators at the main fleet bases. By the end of the war, seven more Dictators were in service..."
BFGM #1:
"Badly damaged Mars class Battlecruisers were occasionally modified to be stripped of weaponry and an additional set of launch bays were added. Dubbed the 'Warbringer' class, this design, once battle prove, was soon adopted into a completly new class dedicated to the role - the first of these 'Jovian' class ships, the Reverent, came into operation just before the outbreak of the Gothic War and it quickly made good account of itself."
Execution Hour - The Gothic war novels follow around the Dictator class Lord Solar Macharius, and so are a bit carrier centric.
Relentless - Mentions a old fleet carrier being abandoned due to a failing warp drive (IIRC)
Battlefleet Koronus - "Often Ill favored by the Command Staff of Battlefleet Calixis, due to preference for ''true' warships, carriers like the Dictator class cruiser are nonetheless a valuable strategic asset for the Imperial Navy, simply due to their versatility." (It goes on to talk about how they're used to deploy IN's atmospheric craft as well, meaning that they are used anywhere and everywhere that IG needs air cover, at least for the initial deployment, but I'm not copying a whole damn page for this, for more details, Page 10 of BFK)
Victoria Horne goes on to comment how she wants to command a Dictator if and when she ever gets promoted away from the Hawk on page 25, suggesting that officer attitudes are changing in IN. 100 years before present.
Page 24-25 also contains the Dictator entry for hulls, stating that the Dictator was originally conceived as a means by which the IN could transport and deploy atmospheric craft and it was over time more and more frequently fitted for anti-ship and support operations. (Most likely to fill in the gap created with the lull in Mars production and the phasing out of the Styx.)
Actually Emp+ Sharks+ fleet admiral vs 3 Defiants @140.
Really Im ok with it as is right now (needs testing of course). Im just running ideas out since it seems thats not the direction others would like to see. We could go from the fluff and give it 2 torps and 0 weapons.
Why 1/750? Its not really that good ;).
It's an issue with people's preconceptions of 'How IN SHOULD be'. Horizon offers a horrific vision of the future, but if you look at you realize that said fleet is also a one trick pony that can be overcome rather quickly.
I see it as a stand off support ship.
str 4 lbs
str 4 torps
20cm with a +5 purchasable upgrade
no other weapons,
150 pts.
Anyone that can close with it can kill it fairly easily, and if anyone is insane enough to try and build a fleet revolving around them, it's pretty much guaranteed to lose. But it's great as long range support for your fleet.
-
Double Post
-
I don't need convincing that the IN is in favor of launch bays. I don't think those examples favor us making am option that will allow IN to out launch most other fleets, regardless of what other factors are involved such as other guns on ships, shield amount, etc.
Alright, if its 1/500, 4 launch bays, 2 wbs, 2 torps, I am calculating it at 150-155pts.
-
Ya 150 feels right. Id still consider dropping the weaps although that doesnt say automatically boost the torps.
1/500 is the natural progression imo:
Endeavour 110, approx 4/500
Endurance 110, less common 2/500
Defiant 150, the least common 1/500
-
Also, at 150pts, the comparison to Dictator is less drastic. 4 Defiants vs 3 Dictators. The Defiants have 4 more LC but 10 less torps. Many more hit points and more turret massing capability, but less shielded. More angle on their wbs but much less FP.
-
I think the bigger point that we are all missing here is what, in gameplay terms, are the various fleets designed to represent and will our changes shift that.
Second, I would not throw out horizons warning as nonchalantly as you seem to be doing. He and sig probably have the most in depth and continuous gameplay experience encompassing most of the fleets out there of everyone talking right now. I have to say I find it rather off putting that we've moved back to the idea of a 4ac cl. Yes, noted, you can do the same with escort carriers in theory, but they are heavily restricted in use since Escort carriers can only be taken as replacements to transports and it is mentioned they are far from ideal. Give the poor defiant a tad more firepower and keep the 2ac.
-
but they are heavily restricted in use since Escort carriers can only be taken as replacements to transports and it is mentioned they are far from ideal.
Um, Vaaish, you might want to pick up your FAQ 2010 and turn to the Wolfpack list in the RT section, as it lets you take them as regular escorts as long as you do a 1 for 1 with a non ordinance escort.
I think the bigger point that we are all missing here is what, in gameplay terms, are the various fleets designed to represent and will our changes shift that.
Second, I would not throw out horizons warning as nonchalantly as you seem to be doing. He and sig probably have the most in depth and continuous gameplay experience encompassing most of the fleets out there of everyone talking right now. I have to say I find it rather off putting that we've moved back to the idea of a 4ac cl.
I suggested that we go back to square one and try and figure out what bakka was about before we start shoving ships in it. Dan made a big speech about how they had done so much work on it (other than removing all the work that was done on bakka for BFG:R by plax, RC gothic and some other people, such as putting back in the Invincible [albeit as a heavy battlecruiser], WHAT WORK?) and it got shot down.
While i respect horizon (my opinion on Sig is well known) he and I have disagreed on this subject for years now. I've seen every one of the other suggestions that have been made for this ship fail. And I mean EVERY ONE. We've all danced around this for years, it's the only option that works. The real issue is balancing it. I don't see 2 per 500 being all that game breaking, because it and Dictator are only in a single IN list together (which already has an epic fuckton of LBs from having every single SM and IN carrier in it, some of whome are much better and cheaper than the 2 LB Defiant), so the argument that it's 'stepping on dictators toes' holds no water whatsoever. If the idea of it in the admech list makes Horizon lose sleep at night, ban it in admech. The Voss Trio are rare ships before 800.M41 anyway.
(And by Horizon's admission, I'm the foremost authority this board has on Bakka and I'm totally ignored)
-
I admit I'm not overly familiar with the RT lists, but I believe we are talking about primarily IN here and I believe my point still stands. I do not see supporting any form of 4 lb cl.
-
Yes by way of RT just about every fleet has ready access to the Escort carrier. Its the -worst- carrier in the game tho so thats not saying much, it still doesnt touch the Exploder for pts/bay either.
What was the warning for Horizion, not being funny but Im not seeing it.
-
I admit I'm not overly familiar with the RT lists, but I believe we are talking about primarily IN here and I believe my point still stands. I do not see supporting any form of 4 lb cl.
*shrug*
It's the one solution that works. We've all covered this ground a dozen times now, going back before FAQ 2010.
We've dropped cost, buffed it six ways till Sunday and it still sucks. 4 LB is hte onyl way to fix it. (Though I'm firmly in favor of crippling it in other ways. The total lack of weapons other than lbs and maybe a prow weapon will make it balanced even at 2 per 500 and 120. 150 seems to make people happier though)
Escort carriers are indeed the worst carrier in the game, but since everyone is making panicked declarations of how having x amount of LBs will utterly imbalance everything, I like to point out that minmax players can already do just that for less and the game has not come crashing down around our ears yet. It's probably one of the reasons that the vote on the Jovian was deadlocked, people are realizing that IN having AC isn't as scary as has been made out in the past.
Horizon has been talking about a 4 lb Defiant in the admech list. I can kind of see what he's driving at, but there's a simple solution to it: pull the defiant from that list. His other suggestion of 6 defiants and 2 emps I find less than terrifying because it's utterly a one trick pony and fragile compared to other lists at that point level, even if bolstered with SCs.
-
but they are heavily restricted in use since Escort carriers can only be taken as replacements to transports and it is mentioned they are far from ideal.
Um, Vaaish, you might want to pick up your FAQ 2010 and turn to the Wolfpack list in the RT section, as it lets you take them as regular escorts as long as you do a 1 for 1 with a non ordinance escort.
I think you have made a fair point about escort carriers.
I think the bigger point that we are all missing here is what, in gameplay terms, are the various fleets designed to represent and will our changes shift that.
Second, I would not throw out horizons warning as nonchalantly as you seem to be doing. He and sig probably have the most in depth and continuous gameplay experience encompassing most of the fleets out there of everyone talking right now. I have to say I find it rather off putting that we've moved back to the idea of a 4ac cl.
I suggested that we go back to square one and try and figure out what bakka was about before we start shoving ships in it. Dan made a big speech about how they had done so much work on it (other than removing all the work that was done on bakka for BFG:R by plax, RC gothic and some other people, such as putting back in the Invincible [albeit as a heavy battlecruiser], WHAT WORK?) and it got shot down.
Saying I made a "big speech" and knocking what we have changed already isn't going to get you anywhere, nor is it making your point. You're just bullying.
While i respect horizon (my opinion on Sig is well known) he and I have disagreed on this subject for years now. I've seen every one of the other suggestions that have been made for this ship fail. And I mean EVERY ONE. Just because options have gotten "shot down"(which you are entirely false by the way considering THIS 10 TO 1 VOTE (http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5239.0)), doesn't make your option the best. We've all danced around this for years, it's the only option that works. The real issue is balancing it. I don't see 2 per 500 being all that game breaking Good luck getting anyone to agree to 2/500. If you start budging a little bit then you might actually get some of your way., because it and Dictator are only in a single IN list together (which already has an epic fuckton of LBs from having every single SM and IN carrier in it which will all still get less LB/pts than your Defiant with 4 LBs so don't throw out that red herring, some of whome are much better and cheaper than the 2 LB Defiant), so the argument that it's 'stepping on dictators toes' holds no water whatsoever. Exaggeration. You just got done pointing out that there is a list where it overalaps and then said it has no weight whatsoever. In fact, both the Armageddon and the Basion have the Dictator and the Defiant. If the idea of it in the admech list makes Horizon lose sleep at night, ban it in admech. The Voss Trio are rare ships before 800.M41 anyway.
(And by Horizon's admission, I'm the foremost authority this board has on Bakka and I'm totally ignored)
Authority in the realm of ideas is earned, and people won't just take Horizon's word for it. Sorry man.
-
If you and Andrew and Vaaish and whoever else would write up what they think the best Defiant stats should be in this thread, we can take a vote on it.
-
str 4 lbs
str 4 torps
20cm with a +5 purchasable upgrade
no other weapons,
150 pts.
Anyone that can close with it can kill it fairly easily, and if anyone is insane enough to try and build a fleet revolving around them, it's pretty much guaranteed to lose. But it's great as long range support for your fleet.
Hey, whack a 0 per 1000 pts or part thereof restriction on it and I'm good with it. No, I lied, I still object to it.
-
so 2Lb no good but 4LB out round and round we go... :P
Talos did mention 3LB, but this doesn't fit either, so what about this?
2 LB's as is, but due to it's lack of guns compared to other ships, it has greater capacity for supplies of fuel and munitions for Attack Craft and raises your fleets AC limit by an extra 1 per Defiant (that's a total 3 per Defiant, 2LB's +1 for bonus). Any takers?
I don't know if this bears out in any published material, but frankly I'm starting to think that strict adherence to the fluff is starting to bog us down.
-
I don't know if this bears out in any published material, but frankly I'm starting to think that strict adherence to the fluff is starting to bog us down.
HERESY ;D jk
-
HERESY ;D jk
I REGRET NOTHING!
-
*Repent!*
Some perspective
Defiant @ 150pts with 4lb?
6 of them : 900pts
+ 1 Emperor + fa : 1295pts
+ 1 more Defiant: 1445pts
re-rolls
That is 7*4 + 8 = 36 launch bays
With only Defiants it could be: 9 Defiants = 9 * 4 = 36, so that doesn't change a bit.
Before this 4lb idea, Imperial Navy could only field a maximum of 6 Dictators = 6*4 = 24 launch bays. 12 Defiants 12*2 = 24
Or with an Emperor in it about 26 launch bays
So this idea increases the attack craft options for the Imperial Navy in a max out version from 26 to 36. Pretty heavy margin imo.
Tau could muster a maximum of 6 Explorers (1380pts) = 6*8 = 48 launch bays.
Chaos: 7 Devestations/ 7*190 = 1330pt = 7*4 = 28 launch bays
I'd still ditch the all prows must be equal and go for a version with 2lb + 4prow batteries + 2 prow torpedoes.
If there is to much objection to different Voss Prows then it should be dropped in point costs to 100pts. And I see roles for the vessel.
-
Chaos 32lb @ 1500 (5x Devi, 2xStyx, Lord) *FAQ2010 pricing
IN 28lb @ 1500 (6x Defiant, 2x Emperor, FA) *FAQ2010 pricing
With my earlier proposal max launch bays would be 32 @ 1500 (3x Defiant, 3x Dictator, 1x Emperor, FA) *BFG-R pricing
Horizons option 30lb @ 1500 (5x Defiant, 1x Dictator, 2x Emperor, FA) *BFG-R pricing
Clearly these are min/max and have obvious, exploitable issues overall.
-
In the Admech list the BFG:R Defiant is pretty useful as an alpha striker: a three ship squadron could do a LO lance strike at Str 9 w/rerolls, a Str 6 torpedo volley combined with a Str 6 AC wave. Pretty dangerous stuff. To reiterate, the BFG:R version has the same hull, speed, prow, turrets and shields as ours, but where it differentiates is in weaponry. It maintains the two launch bays, but also has two lances and a 2 strength torpedo salvo. It is priced at 130pts.
This fits the fluff more accurately than any version presented thus far; people start thinking stupid crap about the Voss Triumverate instead of sticking to the hard truth. The so called "Voss" hull is characterized by two mechanical differences:
1) Reinforced prow like a full cruiser.
2) A 2 Str torpedo salvo. In RT there is even a Voss escort with a 2 str salvo.
If we took the BFG:R profile at 130pts would people be happy? It would change it's role from the support one everyone seems to be advocating but it would be a hella of a lot more dangerous and effective.
Anyone other than me like this profile?
-
Maybe with a single lance and drop the price, 2 lance and 2 torp is a bit heavy compared to 2 weps and 2 torp.
-
@talos: Sold!
-
Yes, I prefer that Defiant the most. I think it needs to be 2 lances because 1 lance can only take a shield down. It can't pair with its other weapons well and makes it necessarily a support ship. The 2 lance version can actually do some damage by itself to smaller ships. With 2 lances and 2 torps, the prow will be slightly more points than a regular Dauntless. Compared to the Dauntless, it will be slower but more durable, slightly heftier prow but with no redundancy within it's armament (worse).
-
Haha, back to the Armada profile...
....but 2 lances is even more prow heavy then 4 weapon batteries....
Being onboxious: why can't the other voss prows have 2 lances? ;)
-
Armada profile, yes please. :D
-
In the Admech list the BFG:R Defiant is pretty useful as an alpha striker: a three ship squadron could do a LO lance strike at Str 9 w/rerolls, a Str 6 torpedo volley combined with a Str 6 AC wave. Pretty dangerous stuff. To reiterate, the BFG:R version has the same hull, speed, prow, turrets and shields as ours, but where it differentiates is in weaponry. It maintains the two launch bays, but also has two lances and a 2 strength torpedo salvo. It is priced at 130pts.
This fits the fluff more accurately than any version presented thus far; people start thinking stupid crap about the Voss Triumverate instead of sticking to the hard truth. The so called "Voss" hull is characterized by two mechanical differences:
1) Reinforced prow like a full cruiser.
2) A 2 Str torpedo salvo. In RT there is even a Voss escort with a 2 str salvo.
If we took the BFG:R profile at 130pts would people be happy? It would change it's role from the support one everyone seems to be advocating but it would be a hella of a lot more dangerous and effective.
Anyone other than me like this profile?
Nope, hate this profile. Why does this carrier need such strong guns? Why don't the other two variants use prow lances? Are you saying that they wouldn't benefit from them? How is having lances fluffy? It "lack(s) any guns for self defence".
Let's say that we gave it 4 launch bays (2F/2B or whatever), what would the prow armament be? It'd be identical to the others, right? So now that we're dropping the launchbays to 2 why does it need more prow guns? Just drop its price. This thing is supposed to be a carrier right? At 4 AC this is obvious, but at 2 AC the proportion of AC to other weaponry just marginally makes it a carrier. Increasing the guns any further drops its AC to less than 50% of its total firepower. This isn't necessarily critical, but does make it harder to call a "carrier".
The prow/dorsal thing isn't an issue. These should be the same as the other two. It might be possible to ditch the prow guns for more torps, since this isn't all that much more powerful than the 2WB (in and of itself) and it a case could be made for why the other two ships wouldn't go that route (preferring more guns to add to their broadside).
Only problem with that is that again it'd have the same weight of fire in its torps as it does in AC as well as having zero direct fire capability.
So, ignoring that, we have the option of strength 2 AC for cheap, with some possible upsides such as a-boats or +1 reload, etc OR strength 4 AC for expensive with downsides, such as -1 to reload, severe composition restrictions, etc.
My most heartfelt preferred option is to delete this ship. Otherwise I'm for identical prow/dorsal, 2AC, cheap.
-
Hey, whack a 0 per 1000 pts or part thereof restriction on it and I'm good with it. No, I lied, I still object to it.
Sig, you'd object to anything I proposed so sorry if no one takes your objection to this particularly seriously.
Some perspective
Defiant @ 150pts with 4lb?
6 of them : 900pts
+ 1 Emperor + fa : 1295pts
+ 1 more Defiant: 1445pts
re-rolls
That is 7*4 + 8 = 36 launch bays
With only Defiants it could be: 9 Defiants = 9 * 4 = 36, so that doesn't change a bit.
And then I bust you for having an illegal list. Since you have +1 Defiants more than is allowed at 1500 points. So that's only 32 lbs.
I've sent another (IMHO less) workable change to Vaaish to bounce it off him, but let me pop it up here as well:
2 per 500
3 lbs (which gives it enough lbs to be useful in pairs but avoids stepping on Dictator's toes too much)
25 cm
str 4 torp.
130
+5 all around
That makes it weak on the line, but powerful ranged support, able to keep away a bit, and worth taking in pairs.
(And Yes, I forgot it was in the Bastions fleet list. It's also technically in the Maelstrom fleet lists too, but no one talks about that.)
-
So then the Emperor + Defiant list still has 36lb. Or...?
Aside of the 3lb, which I'll need to ponder on (because what will crippled and braced do to this?).
25cm speed: no, all Voss CL should be equal in that regard (same argument as prow then), plus the fact carriers are same speed or slower (battleships) generally seen.
And the others points (4 torps), no prow armour, make it even further away from the general Voss design.
One bit could be slipped but not so many.
-
So then the Emperor + Defiant list still has 36lb. Or...?
No, it'd have 32 below 2k points. Remember at 1500 you have a max of 6 Defiants. You were taking a 7th one.
Aside of the 3lb, which I'll need to ponder on (because what will crippled and braced do to this?).
IIRC you round up a penalty on an odd number. So braced/crippled it's be 1, or the same as it is now.
25cm speed: no, all Voss CL should be equal in that regard (same argument as prow then), plus the fact carriers are same speed or slower (battleships) generally seen.
And the others points (4 torps), no prow armour, make it even further away from the general Voss design.
One bit could be slipped but not so many.
Endurance and Endeavor are both line ships, Defiant is a support craft. Logically speaking, it would not be like the other two. It has to be balanced differently to function, particularly since it would be primaried a LOT, as it can be eliminated a lot more easily than a Dictator. Being faster makes that harder than being slow and well armored, so, yes your right it does move away from the other Voss, but I plead 'Game Balance'.
-
IIRC you round up a penalty on an odd number. So braced/crippled it's be 1, or the same as it is now.
You round up after the penalty, so 3/2 = 2. Bracing doesn't halve ordnance, btw, just crippling.
Endurance and Endeavor are both line ships, Defiant is a support craft. Logically speaking, it would not be like the other two. It has to be balanced differently to function, particularly since it would be primaried a LOT, as it can be eliminated a lot more easily than a Dictator. Being faster makes that harder than being slow and well armored, so, yes your right it does move away from the other Voss, but I plead 'Game Balance'.
The Defiant is also a line ship, just like the Dictator. If we were talking a support CVL with 25cm speed and a 5+ prow it'd be based off the Dauntless, not the Endeavour.
-
From the armada entry it would seem that one defiant is very defensive while three deviants make a fair offensive force. I could see them in the 120 to 130 range that puts it at around 360-90 for three.
-
You round up after the penalty, so 3/2 = 2. Bracing doesn't halve ordnance, btw, just crippling.
Sorry, wrote that before coffee.
The Defiant is also a line ship, just like the Dictator. If we were talking a support CVL with 25cm speed and a 5+ prow it'd be based off the Dauntless, not the Endeavour.
It was originally balanced as a 25cm ship, however, when it was still Enforcer.
-
Well, the Enforcer hasn't been made official for a reason. ;)
-
Well, the Enforcer hasn't been made official for a reason. ;)
Eh.... yeah, but that had more to do with politics (both corporate and on this board) than game balance.
IF we have objections to this, let's start with objections to balance and then move on to 'theme'.
-
You round up after the penalty, so 3/2 = 2. Bracing doesn't halve ordnance, btw, just crippling.
When did they change bracing so it doesnt halve ordinance was this a FAQ thing?
2 per 500
3 lbs (which gives it enough lbs to be useful in pairs but avoids stepping on Dictator's toes too much)
25 cm
str 4 torp.
130
+5 all around
Fast cheap attack carrier? Ok but is this a Defiant? No. Hum that seems to have cleared up the issue... I still have not seen anything to represent the Defiant having a different hull than the Endurance.
1/500
Endeavor base hull
4 unrestricted launch
2 Torpedoes
0 Weapons
0 Lances
Thats really about the only way I can see this getting a reasonable amount of Launch, not having some silly rules, and staying close to fluff.
Alternativly
Cheap, like 100 pts.
2/500
base hull
2 Launch
2 Lances or 2 Torpedoes/ Weapons batteries
no Torp and lances
If thats too much of a "Why cant the otherxs take blah blah blah..." give them all the option to swap prow lances for weapons/ torps.
-
@Sigoroth It doesn't have to have lances on the prow, but 2 Strength torpedo prow is iconic Voss. Anything else is stupidly un-fluffy. So 4 strength should be out the window. And dorsal? No offense, but that's foolish. Not a single IN light cruiser is designed with a dorsal mount outside of AdMech versions.
As for launch bays, 3 could work. We would just have to make a rule stating that if it loses either port or starboard it loses 2 str, or only 1, depending on what we decide. Or we could have it be a dice roll: the first time it loses a weapon component on a 4+ it keeps the "extra" lb, on a 1-3 it loses 2 LB. This point of strength is restored if the component is repaired.
-
Alternativly
Cheap, like 100 pts.
2/500
base hull
2 Launch
2 Lances or 2 Torpedoes/ Weapons batteries
no Torp and lances
If thats too much of a "Why cant the otherxs take blah blah blah..." give them all the option to swap prow lances for weapons/ torps.
Ok, but with this profile, what not just throw the 2 FLR wbs on it like the other 2 CLs and just price it right? It would be a 6pts boost.
Why not just this:
110pts in Imperial Navy, 130pts for Adeptus Mechanicus ( extra turret not included in the following profile)
6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+ armor, 3 turrets
1 Launch bay per side, 2 Torpedoes, 2 Prow Weapon Battlers F/L/R
-
Isnt that where we are right now anyway?
-
Yes. We had a 10-1 vote at that point. Why is there so much disagreement now? It's weird to me!
Ok, this version you have that is 3 launch bays, would it be 1 port, 1 starboard, 1 dorsal? We can say that extra hangar's have been opened in the dorsal cavities of the ship because of limited space?
-
Ok, this version you have that is 3 launch bays, would it be 1 port, 1 starboard, 1 dorsal? We can say that extra hangar's have been opened in the dorsal cavities of the ship because of limited space?
Ok, explain your reasoning on that and we might have an agreement.
-
Why not just this:
110pts in Imperial Navy, 130pts for Adeptus Mechanicus ( extra turret not included in the following profile)
6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+ armor, 3 turrets
1 Launch bay per side, 2 Torpedoes, 2 Prow Weapon Battlers F/L/R
Sounds reasonable provided we kept classic Armada style restrictions for BF Solar
"*The Endurance and Defiant are rare variants of the Endeavour, and with manufacturing and refitting capabilities at a premium during the Third Armageddon War, the forge world of Voss inevitably produced far more of the Endeavour than either of its variants. For this reason, the combined numbers of Endurance and Defiant class vessels may not exceed the number of Endeavour class light cruisers in the fleet."
This needs to be backed up with play test however.
Not sure as to all the heart ache over Ad Mech list. Each fleet has restrictions tailored to the playstyle the fleet represents. Adjust accordingly based on the decided stats. I personally think the cart is completely before the horse in the current BFG:R reboot discussions. You figure out the vessels first and then move onto the fleets based on a theme/playstyle. Most of this great project has worked that way well but has fallen over here it seems.
Ok, this version you have that is 3 launch bays, would it be 1 port, 1 starboard, 1 dorsal? We can say that extra hangar's have been opened in the dorsal cavities of the ship because of limited space?
Reasonable compromise as well but what would you suggest a cost would be? In addition the above restrictions MAY need to be adjusted in light of the higher amounts of AC. Personally I'd rather see this get put to bed with an imperfect but fun (read: flavorful) to play ship. Far too contentious issue here methinks (and this coming from an AC slut :) ).
I think it boils down to the following points:
-Baron points out that 2ac doesn't really do a LC carrier justice when compared to what an escort can do. It should be demonstrably more than a glorified Escort Carrier. There's newer canonical fluff that points out that this is true. Fair point that we should be able to agree with conceptually.
-Horizon points out that this has the potential to be abused in ways that we must be careful about. This too is true and we all should be concerned about that when we discuss things.
-Sig points out that 4ac is simply not warranted under the current rule set. I can totally see his point there.
-Someone (i can't be bothered to look it up) suggested 3ac but that's another can of worms as it breaks existing conventions, even if they don't accurately model the universe and fluff well.
-afterimagedan suggested a compromise of stating the vessel with three 1 AC LBs. Interesting concept and has merit to be discussed.
Everything bullet'ed above has merit and should be acknowledged from all parties.
The reality is that the game is an abstraction and like all abstractions has "rounding errors" :). This might just mean that "reality" has to balanced by play-ability and some concern to the elegance of the ship in actual play (read: does it slow down the gameplay too much? is it hard to keep all the rules straight? etc).
Now all that being said I think that the least onerous approach would be to keep special rules to a minimum, keep to existing conventions where possible, and attempt to match ability within existing processes as much.
I'd suggest this->
110pts in Imperial Navy, 130pts for Adeptus Mechanicus ( extra turret not included in the following profile)
6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+ armor, 3 turrets
1 Launch bay per side, 2 Torpedoes, 2 Prow Weapon Battlers F/L/R
+1 LD for rolls to RO.
This shouldn't be unbalancing as Sig worries, we can push beardiness onto the individual fleet lists to cover horizons concerns, rightly so. Lastly Baron, this bonus should represent the better ability of the vessel to launch craft as befits an LC.
-
Ok, this version you have that is 3 launch bays, would it be 1 port, 1 starboard, 1 dorsal? We can say that extra hangar's have been opened in the dorsal cavities of the ship because of limited space?
Ok, explain your reasoning on that and we might have an agreement.
I didn't bring it up originally but I would imaging that with the size of the ship, they may have limited facilities for launch bays and launch capacity. The Defiant is much smaller than the Dictator and it probably has much more restricted internal space. I think it would be reasonable to say that the Defiant has storage and make-shift launch locations on its dorsal side to fit as many launch craft as possible. It could also be said that the Defiant has that extra space in its dorsal part but the craft still leave through the port or starboard side. If one side is down, they fly out the other. If the dorsal is down, the extra 1 doesn't launch. If both port and starboard are down, no launching even if dorsal is down.
-
I didn't bring it up originally but I would imaging that with the size of the ship, they may have limited facilities for launch bays and launch capacity. The Defiant is much smaller than the Dictator and it probably has much more restricted internal space. I think it would be reasonable to say that the Defiant has storage and make-shift launch locations on its dorsal side to fit as many launch craft as possible. It could also be said that the Defiant has that extra space in its dorsal part but the craft still leave through the port or starboard side. If one side is down, they fly out the other. If the dorsal is down, the extra 1 doesn't launch. If both port and starboard are down, no launching even if dorsal is down.
Actually (admittedly using crunch, but it does seem to fit with fluff) next to macrocannons, launch bays are the most space and infrastructure friendly weapon system. Compared to, say, Endurance and Endeavor, a Defiant would actually be fairly spacious, as they lack the extensive power relays of lances and sheer size of Nova Cannons.
Each point of Str of a launch bay allows it to hold three squadrons worth of AC, cargo boats, or planetary aircraft.
One of the reasons that I argue that IN is 'all about' AC is the way division of power works in the Imperium. Namely that IG do not have any aircraft what so ever (as laid out following the Horus Heresy in the same documents that do that 'No SM lances' thing). They are all operated and deployed by IN. This means that IN would have to have enough launch bay capability to support potentially dozens of warzones in a given sector. While a regiment could easily be supported by aircraft transported by a single ship, and entire war zone might realistically still require two or more.
When you consider how many wars IG has going at a given moment, you see why I say that IN must have more AC than is currently accepted by the BFG community. If they did not, they could not possibly support that many operations.
-Baron points out that 2ac doesn't really do a LC carrier justice when compared to what an escort can do. It should be demonstrably more than a glorified Escort Carrier. There's newer canonical fluff that points out that this is true. Fair point that we should be able to agree with conceptually.
-Horizon points out that this has the potential to be abused in ways that we must be careful about. This too is true and we all should be concerned about that when we discuss things.
-Sig points out that 4ac is simply not warranted under the current rule set. I can totally see his point there.
-Someone (i can't be bothered to look it up) suggested 3ac but that's another can of worms as it breaks existing conventions, even if they don't accurately model the universe and fluff well.
-afterimagedan suggested a compromise of stating the vessel with three 1 AC LBs. Interesting concept and has merit to be discussed.
Everything bullet'ed above has merit and should be acknowledged from all parties.
Yes, I fully acknowledge those points though I suggest that Sig's point is somewhat overstated.
The problem with the LD bonus is that it does not deal with one of the main issues that the Defiant has to deal with, and that's AC wave size. To be blunt, Defiant as sits is unable to do anything meaningful with AC on it's own beyond shoot down torps.
If given a choice between SCs or Dictator and a Defiant and most players will invariably pick the SC or Dictator.
Since this ship has to compete for points with the likes of hybrids like SCs and Dictators for points, and is a dedicated carrier, lets give it an advantage in being a carrier.
At 150 points for 3 lbs at 2 per 500, it's more costly for what you're getting that most equivalent ships in IN or any other fleet, but no longer comparable to the Escort Carrier for firepower.
-
lolz
Good post Jimmy.
I agree with that profile (110pts in Imperial Navy, 130pts for Adeptus Mechanicus ( extra turret not included in the following profile)
6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+ armor, 3 turrets
1 Launch bay per side, 2 Torpedoes, 2 Prow Weapon Battlers F/L/R)
(if the 4wb prow is not wanted) as I stated before. Wrap it up Dan and lets forget all this 3&4 lb nonsense. ;)
Bracing and launching ordnance
In an un-sigorotish way sigoroth has been wrong about this. When braced launch capacity is halved, it is the only special order to do so.
FAQ2010 page 3 middle column
MAIN RULEBOOK page 12: Brace for Impact: ordnance: half effect
-
FFG Defiant launch bays:
I looked more into it:
In the starship weapons table there are the following entries for Jovian Launch Bays:
Jovian-pattern escort bay - hull type: light cruiser, cruiser - str.1
Jovian-pattern landing bay - hull type: cruiser - str.2
Jovian Pattern Escort Bay background: designed specifically for light cruisers to fit on the hull.
Endurance space: 58, lowered with prow torpedoes: voss pattern torp tubes = space 5, thus total space clean = 58+5 = 63
Defiant space:55, lowered with Jovian Bays: escort bays = space 4. 4+4 =8
55+8 = 63 Ding.
With the bigger landing bay it would come on 55+12 = 67 space
With all this we can assume that in Battlefleet Koronus the Defiant comes with the Jovian Escort bay.
These are str1 per side, for a total of 2.
And thus half strength of the bigger bay on Mars & Dictator. Thus FFG says the same as BFG always did:
Defiant str2
Dictator-Mars str4
:)
-
FFG Defiant launch bays:
I looked more into it:
In the starship weapons table there are the following entries for Jovian Launch Bays:
Jovian-pattern escort bay - hull type: light cruiser, cruiser - str.1
Jovian-pattern landing bay - hull type: cruiser - str.2
Jovian Pattern Escort Bay background: designed specifically for light cruisers to fit on the hull.
Endurance space: 58, lowered with prow torpedoes: voss pattern torp tubes = space 5, thus total space clean = 58+5 = 63
Defiant space:55, lowered with Jovian Bays: escort bays = space 4. 4+4 =8
55+8 = 63 Ding.
With the bigger landing bay it would come on 55+12 = 67 space
With all this we can assume that in Battlefleet Koronus the Defiant comes with the Jovian Escort bay.
These are str1 per side, for a total of 2.
And thus half strength of the bigger bay on Mars & Dictator. Thus FFG says the same as BFG always did:
Defiant str2
Dictator-Mars str4
*sigh*
I've been trying to find where it was originally posted but...
"The Carrier ability should specify that the Jovian-class Launch Bay Components are Landing Bays."
Which makes sense as the Mars and Exorcist also are equipped with 'Jovian Pattern Launch Bays'.
Further, the 'non-removable' modules were put in place for items that would not otherwise fit, example: using the same system an Exorcist would have 92 space, and an Avenger only has 90.
In an un-sigorotish way sigoroth has been wrong about this. When braced launch capacity is halved, it is the only special order to do so.
FAQ2010 page 3 middle column
MAIN RULEBOOK page 12: Brace for Impact: ordnance: half effect
I thought I was right the first time...
-
In all entries it is called Jovian Launch Bays.
The list specifies Jovian Escort Bays & Jovian Landing Bays.
The list says Escort Bays are for light cruisers and cruisers.
The list says Landing bays are cruisers only.
There can't be confusion on what the Defiant has.
And ah yeah, The Gryphon, character ship is listed with Jovian Pattern Landing Bays specifically mentioned.
-
In all entries it is called Jovian Launch Bays.
The list specifies Jovian Escort Bays & Jovian Landing Bays.
The list says Escort Bays are for light cruisers and cruisers.
The list says Landing bays are cruisers only.
There can't be confusion on what the Defiant has.
And ah yeah, The Gryphon, character ship is listed with Jovian Pattern Landing Bays specifically mentioned.
*Shrug*
This question has been asked a lot:
Sam Stewart only gave that vague response when questioned about it, and the authors stated that the reason that the ships that got 'non removable' components got them was that they take something they could not normally have or save space. Bobh went ahead and made his RT ship spread sheet to reflect this answer, which was all we got.
Thus Defiant only gets 3 weapon slots (2 permanently occupied by Launch bays) to Endeavors 4 and Excorcist only spends 10 space when it should spend 12.
The (fan made but FFG hosted) FAQ isn't even very helpful, as the issue is not addressed.
Edit: Double Checked: Every single ship with the 'Carrier' rule takes Lbs at reduced space.
I don't have a way to calculate the changes though for the ships with a permanent torpedo as none of them have a non-torp version to compare it to.
Additional Edit: Sent Sam Stewart a message to settle this once and for all.
-
BFG:R Current stats:
110pts in Imperial Navy, 130pts for Adeptus Mechanicus ( extra turret not included in the following profile)
6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+ armor, 3 turrets
1 Launch bay per side, 2 Torpedoes, 2 Prow Weapon Battlers F/L/R
Armada Stats:
110pts in Imperial Navy,
6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+ armor, 2 turrets
1 Launch bay per side, 2 Prow Lances F/L/R
Baron Stats:
str 4 lbs
str 4 torps
20cm with a +5 purchasable upgrade
no other weapons,
150 pts.
Jimmy Zimms stats:
110pts in Imperial Navy, 130pts for Adeptus Mechanicus ( extra turret not included in the following profile)
6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+ armor, 3 turrets
1 Launch bay per side, 2 Torpedoes, 2 Prow Weapon Battlers F/L/R
+1 LD for rolls to RO.
AndrewChristlieb Merge stats:
Cheap, like 100 pts.
2/500
2 Launch
2 Lances or 2 Torpedoes/ Weapons batteries
Any other stats I am missing that need to be on the voting post? It's time to vote on this and get it done with.
-
Actually (admittedly using crunch, but it does seem to fit with fluff) next to macrocannons, launch bays are the most space and infrastructure friendly weapon system. Compared to, say, Endurance and Endeavor, a Defiant would actually be fairly spacious, as they lack the extensive power relays of lances and sheer size of Nova Cannons.
Each point of Str of a launch bay allows it to hold three squadrons worth of AC, cargo boats, or planetary aircraft.
Yeah, but we're talking having enough ordnance of any given type last an entire battle, plus the extra quarters and life support necessary to accommodate the ground crew and flight staff. So I don't think that they're all that good on space.
One of the reasons that I argue that IN is 'all about' AC is the way division of power works in the Imperium. Namely that IG do not have any aircraft what so ever (as laid out following the Horus Heresy in the same documents that do that 'No SM lances' thing). They are all operated and deployed by IN. This means that IN would have to have enough launch bay capability to support potentially dozens of warzones in a given sector. While a regiment could easily be supported by aircraft transported by a single ship, and entire war zone might realistically still require two or more.
When you consider how many wars IG has going at a given moment, you see why I say that IN must have more AC than is currently accepted by the BFG community. If they did not, they could not possibly support that many operations.
The IN have hundreds of ships per sector, sure a few of them are carriers. That doesn't mean that they are carrier centric. In fact, it would imply that their carriers are more often used for ground support rather than fleet actions. Presumably one of the reasons for the existence of the escort carrier is to provide cheap ground support for the IG, as well as for their role in escort duties.
Yes, I fully acknowledge those points though I suggest that Sig's point is somewhat overstated.
Heh, you would.
The problem with the LD bonus is that it does not deal with one of the main issues that the Defiant has to deal with, and that's AC wave size. To be blunt, Defiant as sits is unable to do anything meaningful with AC on it's own beyond shoot down torps.
That's not the main issue with the Defiant though. The main issue with the Defiant is playability. The Defiant only needs 4 AC if it is meant to be able to operate solo or provide full air cover for an entire fleet. It's a support vessel. The IN don't need a cheaper carrier than Chaos.
If given a choice between SCs or Dictator and a Defiant and most players will invariably pick the SC or Dictator.
Yes of course, they're much better ships. They're also more expensive. You could get the (putative) Defiant for 100 pts, but you can't buy 100 pts worth of Dictator. Also, under BFG:R the SC has only 1TH, so the Defiant has air superiority.
Since this ship has to compete for points with the likes of hybrids like SCs and Dictators for points, and is a dedicated carrier, lets give it an advantage in being a carrier.
The problem is that the IN have nothing but hybrid carriers. A pure carrier is going to be far better than a hybrid and so any addition of a pure carrier is going to make all those hybrid carriers redundant. Not a good way to go. Similarly, without significant restrictions (and 2/500 isn't a restriction at all) you alter the interfleet balance too much.
You see only the strength of bays as being the reward for being a true carrier. However, the only other true carrier in the basic game (the Styx) has penalties to its strength. So that is not out of the ordinary. There are other possible benefits we can give it. We could give it a-boats, making its strength 2 wave slightly more effective against escorts when on solo ops and giving it another option in fleet engagements. We could give it +1 to reload making it, and potentially any ship in squadron with it, more reliable. We could give it +1 turret, as a lot of carriers have extra turrets. Etcetera.
(Note: I'm actually against the +1 turret now. It already has over the odds for a CL and the fact that Admech/Bakka versions get an extra turret on top and can potentially go up another 2 turrets with FDT making for a 6 turret monstrosity has convinced me it's a bad idea.)
At 150 points for 3 lbs at 2 per 500, it's more costly for what you're getting that most equivalent ships in IN or any other fleet, but no longer comparable to the Escort Carrier for firepower.
Ok, first off, ditch the 2/500 rubbish. That's not a restriction. "Oh, sorry, only 60% of your fleet can be Defiants". That's not a restriction, it's a challenge. Put a proper restriction on it, 1/1000 pts or part thereof. Secondly it's still comparable to the Escort Carrier since it is far more than twice the size and cost and still only provides 1.5 times the AC. Two escort carriers still out AC it. This isn't an issue though, and never has been. At 2 AC for 100 pts the Defiant is still better than a CVE both in terms of 1 on 1 and point for point. What's more it's capable of being used in the line, which is where it's supposed to be. A 2 AC Defiant is perfectly viable.
Having said that I'm not, in principle, against a 3AC Defiant. It would correct the rounding error issue. What it doesn't do is split very well. You can't have 1.5 AC per side and having an asymmetrical distribution doesn't make sense. The other notion was to add a third hardpoint on the dorsal mount, so that it divides evenly. However, IN CLs don't get a dorsal mount and it'd be cluttered for an AM version. So that left the psuedo-dorsal mount, which to be honest, makes me want to gag.
So by all accounts 3AC looks to be impossible. Well, almost. I can think of a way to do it cleanly, but it does require a precedent. Instead of making it P/S launch bays we could just make it a single hardpoint bay, strength 3. Just call it Launch Bay, or midship launch bay. Any port OR starboard crit will take it off-line till repaired.
-
Bracing and launching ordnance
In an un-sigorotish way sigoroth has been wrong about this. When braced launch capacity is halved, it is the only special order to do so.
FAQ2010 page 3 middle column
MAIN RULEBOOK page 12: Brace for Impact: ordnance: half effect
Woops, brain fart there. I blame the 31 hrs I'd been up. Well that and my inherent stupidity. Anyway, there'd be quite a few people that would disagree that it's "un-sigorothish". Just ask Baron, he'll tell ya.
-
There is a difference between knowing what the rules are versus what should the stats be.
@BaronI, why don't you believe me? I gave all evidence from the book. If you give the Defiant the landing bays you are breaking the rules. Period.
I mailed Sam three days ago. ::)
-
Yes of course, they're much better ships. They're also more expensive. You could get the (putative) Defiant for 100 pts, but you can't buy 100 pts worth of Dictator. Also, under BFG:R the SC has only 1TH, so the Defiant has air superiority.
Actually it has two! :D
-
So by all accounts 3AC looks to be impossible. Well, almost. I can think of a way to do it cleanly, but it does require a precedent. Instead of making it P/S launch bays we could just make it a single hardpoint bay, strength 3. Just call it Launch Bay, or midship launch bay. Any port OR starboard crit will take it off-line till repaired.
That does sound doable. If we can come up with a profile for that, let's add it to the list. I am going to put the vote for this up tomorrow night most likely so get crackin.
-
Yes of course, they're much better ships. They're also more expensive. You could get the (putative) Defiant for 100 pts, but you can't buy 100 pts worth of Dictator. Also, under BFG:R the SC has only 1TH, so the Defiant has air superiority.
Actually it has two! :D
Wait what? When did that get changed?
-
Well... after reading pages and pages I came to this conclusion....
the defiant as it is now:
DEFIANT (currently 115 pts)
6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+, 2 turrets
P/S Launchbays (1 each)
Prow torpedoes 2
Prow wbs F/L/R/ 30cm 2
I would say: A slow light cruiser with AC is a very unusual ship for the IN...so It shouldn't be something an IN fleet relies on to be its mainstay, or to be decisive in battle.
look a the defiant as it is, just a rare vessel, an anecdotal support ship, IMO it shouldn't be a good ship, but a surprising one. If we make this ship balanced and useful, something bad could happen....... people would start to use it...... we should only make it not too crappy, so people would start to consider it to fill a small AC gap...
My proposed stats:
DEFIANT 110 pts
6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+, 3 turrets
P/S Launchbays (1 each)
Prow torpedoes 2
Prow wbs F/L/R/ 30cm 2
I couldn't come with something else...
-
Yeah, but we're talking having enough ordnance of any given type last an entire battle, plus the extra quarters and life support necessary to accommodate the ground crew and flight staff. So I don't think that they're all that good on space.
Supposedly that includes enough space for those things. Though Pilot ready rooms, combat simulators, etc are a very tiny increment more.
The IN have hundreds of ships per sector, sure a few of them are carriers. That doesn't mean that they are carrier centric. In fact, it would imply that their carriers are more often used for ground support rather than fleet actions. Presumably one of the reasons for the existence of the escort carrier is to provide cheap ground support for the IG, as well as for their role in escort duties.
Sig, according to fluff since AT LEAST Codex: Eye of Terror, IN has about 100-150 warships in it's very largest sector fleets. (The Bastion Fleets surrounding the Eye of Terror).
The problem is that the IN have nothing but hybrid carriers. A pure carrier is going to be far better than a hybrid and so any addition of a pure carrier is going to make all those hybrid carriers redundant. Not a good way to go. Similarly, without significant restrictions (and 2/500 isn't a restriction at all) you alter the interfleet balance too much.
The problem with that is, again, the Defiant appears in very few fleet lists. And, and if we were supposed ot keep pure carriers out of IN we missed the boat in 2010.
You see only the strength of bays as being the reward for being a true carrier. However, the only other true carrier in the basic game (the Styx) has penalties to its strength. So that is not out of the ordinary. There are other possible benefits we can give it. We could give it a-boats, making its strength 2 wave slightly more effective against escorts when on solo ops and giving it another option in fleet engagements. We could give it +1 to reload making it, and potentially any ship in squadron with it, more reliable. We could give it +1 turret, as a lot of carriers have extra turrets. Etcetera.
Having no other weapons is not a penalty? :o
(Note: I'm actually against the +1 turret now. It already has over the odds for a CL and the fact that Admech/Bakka versions get an extra turret on top and can potentially go up another 2 turrets with FDT making for a 6 turret monstrosity has convinced me it's a bad idea.)
The +1 ld is also a pretty bad idea if you think about the Bastion fleet list.
Two escort carriers still out AC it. This isn't an issue though, and never has been. At 2 AC for 100 pts the Defiant is still better than a CVE both in terms of 1 on 1 and point for point. What's more it's capable of being used in the line, which is where it's supposed to be. A 2 AC Defiant is perfectly viable.
Yes, but it's still not competitive with the ships it shares lists with.
However, IN CLs don't get a dorsal mount and it'd be cluttered for an AM version. So that left the psuedo-dorsal mount, which to be honest, makes me want to gag.
*shrug* This whole ship revolts you, I suppose that some part of it might make you want to gag. ;D
So by all accounts 3AC looks to be impossible. Well, almost. I can think of a way to do it cleanly, but it does require a precedent. Instead of making it P/S launch bays we could just make it a single hardpoint bay, strength 3. Just call it Launch Bay, or midship launch bay. Any port OR starboard crit will take it off-line till repaired.
Hmm... Note to self: Sig being moderately reasonable. Check for horsemen riding through sky.
If we make this ship balanced and useful, something bad could happen....... people would start to use it...... we should only make it not too crappy, so people would start to consider it to fill a small AC gap...
Well...
Making otherwise broken and useless ships useful and viable is what BFG:R is SUPPOSED to be about. Deliberately making a ship broken and useless so people won't play it is sort of the opposite of that.
It's sort of like making men slaves in the name of freedom or committing terrible sins in the name of God. Yes, people have done that, but their hypocrisy tends to taint the things they stood for.
@BaronI, why don't you believe me? I gave all evidence from the book. If you give the Defiant the landing bays you are breaking the rules. Period.
That's just it, I grant what you're saying is true about the space, however, the 'carrier' rule it was assigned in every single other instance reduces the space that launch bays take. So saying that 'The space matched' if it follows every other ship with that rule, actually means that it cannot be that component, because the space would be less than 4 per bay.
And, again, the ships with 'non removable' components were given that rule as a trade off for having components at a discount and/or because they could not otherwise take them. (Which would clearly apply here.)
-
So by all accounts 3AC looks to be impossible. Well, almost. I can think of a way to do it cleanly, but it does require a precedent. Instead of making it P/S launch bays we could just make it a single hardpoint bay, strength 3. Just call it Launch Bay, or midship launch bay. Any port OR starboard crit will take it off-line till repaired.
That does sound doable. If we can come up with a profile for that, let's add it to the list. I am going to put the vote for this up tomorrow night most likely so get crackin.
I dont like the idea of them having different prow armament even tho I understand the reasoning, and actually with all of the equipment required to keep flight wings operational I would say the power requirements for the flight decks would be pretty high. Clearly not as high as a dedicated Lance battery but then the Lances pull right from the main plasma core. Weapons batteries would have a significantly lower power requirement than the Lances also.
So radical idea:
Armament Range/Speed Firepower/Str Fire Arc
*Port/Starboard Launch Bays Furies 30cm 1+d3 squadrons -
Starhawks 20cm
* Port/Starboard Launch Bays: The Defiants launch bays will be compleatly disabled on either a Port Armament Damaged or Starboard Armament Damaged critical hit. This is still only one weapon emplacement, the most you can launch per turn is 1+d3 squadrons not 1+d3 squadrons per side.
Blah blah blah, replace 1+d3 with a straight 3 and theres the rules for a 3 launch "pass through" or whatever you want to call it bay.
Defiant: ~ 120pts
Cruiser/6 Speed: 20cm Turns:90* Armor: 6+front/5+ Turrets: 2
Armament Range/Speed Firepower/Str Fire Arc
*Port/Starboard Launch Bays Furies 30cm 3 squadrons -
Starhawks 20cm
Prow Torpedoes 30cm 2 F
Prow Weapons battery 30cm 2 L/F/R
-
There really isn't a good precedent for a fixed 3 lb ship outside of some nid configs. Those fall pretty far outside the realm of standard though. There is precedent for one bay representing anything from s1-s4 though.
-
BFG:R Current stats:
110pts in Imperial Navy, 130pts for Adeptus Mechanicus ( extra turret not included in the following profile)
6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+ armor, 3 turrets
1 Launch bay per side, 2 Torpedoes, 2 Prow Weapon Battlers F/L/R
Armada Stats:
110pts in Imperial Navy,
6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+ armor, 2 turrets
1 Launch bay per side, 2 Prow Lances F/L/R
Baron Stats:
str 4 lbs
str 4 torps
20cm with a +5 purchasable upgrade
no other weapons,
150 pts.
Jimmy Zimms stats:
110pts in Imperial Navy, 130pts for Adeptus Mechanicus ( extra turret not included in the following profile)
6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+ armor, 3 turrets
1 Launch bay per side, 2 Torpedoes, 2 Prow Weapon Battlers F/L/R
+1 LD for rolls to RO.
AndrewChristlieb Merge stats:
Cheap, like 100 pts.
2/500
2 Launch
2 Lances or 2 Torpedoes/ Weapons batteries
AndrewChristlieb 3 launch bays:
Defiant: ~ 120pts
Cruiser/6 Speed: 20cm Turns:90* Armor: 6+front/5+ Turrets: 2
Armament Range/Speed Firepower/Str Fire Arc
*Port/Starboard Launch Bays Furies 30cm 3 squadrons -
Starhawks 20cm
Prow Torpedoes 30cm 2 F
Prow Weapons battery 30cm 2 L/F/R
Any other ones?
-
Mine was also 2 per 500.
-
With those options we might as well just stick with the armada version. 3lb is awkward, 4 is right out. 100 points is too cheap and the option to swap the prow armament begs the question of who would ever take the wb. The added turret causes problems of their own which drops us right back at the armada version.
-
Well if you want torpedoes you would pick the weapons batteries ;).
-
:P
Andrews version but NO lance on the prow and no restriction. Thus:
6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+ armor, 2 turrets
1 Launch bay per side, 2 Prow Weapon Batteries @30cm F/L/R, 2 prow torpedoes
// 100pts
Or a 3 turret version @ 110pts (I know +10 is to much but ah wella
-
Is anyone considering the Defiant with 4 launch, 2 torps, 2 FLR WBs still? I don't have that on the voting list.
-
Sig, according to fluff since AT LEAST Codex: Eye of Terror, IN has about 100-150 warships in it's very largest sector fleets. (The Bastion Fleets surrounding the Eye of Terror).
Ok, so out of that 100-150 ships there might be an Emperor, a couple of Mars, 3 or 4 Dictators and a few escort carriers. Jobs done. There's no need to suggest that the IN must have so many carriers that carriers have to make up 40% of their warfleets and that it's impossible for them not to have X amount of dedicated carriers blah blah blah. Sure, they need some carriers. But guess what, they've got some carriers.
The problem with that is, again, the Defiant appears in very few fleet lists.
By "very few" you mean every list other than the Gothic list and the currently being discussed Bakka list, right? The Defiant appears in the Bastion, Solar and AM lists and in every one of those you can take a Dictator. Meaning yes, the Defiant should not invalidate the IN's current crop of hybrid carriers.
And, and if we were supposed ot keep pure carriers out of IN we missed the boat in 2010.
What? Are you talking about the Jovian here? Newsflash, one of the reasons everyone is up in arms over the Jovian in the first place is for the exact same reason the Defiant shouldn't get 4AC. You can't be trying to argue that the inclusion of a much hated ship in an unofficial document paves the way for another much hated ship?
Look, I myself am by nature a purist. That is I tend to min/max and I also tend to extrapolate linearly and at full efficiency. So, when I see a Dictator or a Devastation with 1 hardpoint per side which launches 2AC then I figure that a Styx or Jovian should get 4 per side, since it has twice the number of hardpoints. Similarly I see 1 hardpoint per side on the Defiant and I say to myself "same as a Dictator". And if we had full strength Styx's and Jovians and a Nemesis fleet carrier right from the start I'd be fine with all that.
However GW decided, for whatever reason, to go with an inefficient expansion method. They decided that the most efficient way to get AC was with non-dedicated carriers. They decided that dedicated carriers provide less AC than would be expected. As such ships like the Dictator, Mars and Emperor are the mainstays of fleets. A 4AC Defiant would become the primary method of attaining AC in an IN fleet. It would invalidate the Dictator and Mars greatly even when "restricted" to 2/500. What's more it would change the interfleet dynamic, by increasing the amount of AC that IN can get at certain points breaks.
This is the current state of play. You want the IN to be something different. You want a more AC centric IN. This means that you reject out of hand all these considerations. Well others don't and nor do I, even though it is my nature to min/max. This is a learned behaviour for me, in an attempt to be more reasonable.
Having no other weapons is not a penalty? :o
Firstly it does have other weapons. Secondly, there is no truly efficient pure carrier in the IN. The Emperor comes close, but it isn't a pure carrier, having 24WBe in AC and 22WB in direct fire weaponry. So full strength is out.
The +1 ld is also a pretty bad idea if you think about the Bastion fleet list.
Just to point out, your 4AC profile suggestion also came with +1 Ld to reload, but apart from that I don't see why it's a bad idea considering the Bastion fleet list.
Yes, but it's still not competitive with the ships it shares lists with.
Ok, ignoring the 2TH SC, why isn't it competitive? What does "competitive" mean in this context? Does it mean, "it's so good as a carrier that it's the go-to ship for fulfilling AC requirements"? If so, then how does a Dictator remain "competitive"? Or, is it merely "it's a balanced ship for its cost and will complement your other carriers"?
To be clear, my preferred profile here is the 100 pt 2/2/2 WB/T/AC. So paired with a Dictator you essentially get a grand cruiser with 8WB, 8T and 6AC for 310 pts. That's not too bad.
*shrug* This whole ship revolts you, I suppose that some part of it might make you want to gag. ;D
Yeah well, this ship is worse than the Jovian. It has all the same problems as the Jovian but even more restrictions on what's allowable making it a nightmare to balance.
Hmm... Note to self: Sig being moderately reasonable. Check for horsemen riding through sky.
I'm always reasonable. Just not all that flexible. All my arguments are reasoned though. You have an agenda you are pushing (more AC centric IN) that makes you unreasonable. You ignore the consequences that a 4AC Defiant would create.
On the issue of the Defiant though I have been both reasonable and flexible. I have proposed a very limited 4AC (albeit 2f/2b) Defiant, a 3AC single bay Defiant, a 2AC with bonuses Defiant (ABs/turret/Ld) and a 2AC cheap Defiant. This flexibility is due to the insane hoops we have to jump through to make a viable Voss carrier.
If we make this ship balanced and useful, something bad could happen....... people would start to use it...... we should only make it not too crappy, so people would start to consider it to fill a small AC gap...
Hehe, agreed.
Making otherwise broken and useless ships useful and viable is what BFG:R is SUPPOSED to be about. Deliberately making a ship broken and useless so people won't play it is sort of the opposite of that.
Yes, but viable doesn't mean "new mainstay carrier". It means that you won't be penalised unduly for taking it. The Armageddon is viable at 235 pts, but it's still a touch overpriced. At 100 pts a 2AC Defiant would be completely viable.
It's sort of like making men slaves in the name of freedom or committing terrible sins in the name of God. Yes, people have done that, but their hypocrisy tends to taint the things they stood for.
Nothing of the sort. He suggested that its role in fleet composition would be to fill a small AC gap rather than be used as an alternative to other carriers. Your analogy is false.
-
:P
Andrews version but NO lance on the prow and no restriction. Thus:
6 hits, 20cm speed, 90* turns, 1 shield, 6+/5+ armor, 2 turrets
1 Launch bay per side, 2 Prow Weapon Batteries @30cm F/L/R, 2 prow torpedoes
// 100pts
Or a 3 turret version @ 110pts (I know +10 is to much but ah wella
Yeah, ditch the lances. The 3 turret version at 110 pts is the currently voted on and accepted Defiant. I think that the 6 turret monstrosity that is possible in Bakka/AM lists makes this undesirable. If we're going for a 110 pt price tag then I'd rather see it with a-boats and/or +1 to RO attempts.
-
Ok, so out of that 100-150 ships there might be an Emperor, a couple of Mars, 3 or 4 Dictators and a few escort carriers. Jobs done. There's no need to suggest that the IN must have so many carriers that carriers have to make up 40% of their warfleets and that it's impossible for them not to have X amount of dedicated carriers blah blah blah. Sure, they need some carriers. But guess what, they've got some carriers.
Well, other than Escort carriers not being a standard element of IN, and production of the Mars having ceased millenia ago and there being 'few surviving examples' (BFG Blue Book)...
Further, Battlefleet Gothic itself has, according to Blue Book, 7 new Dictators to make up for demand. If Gothic follows the more 'average' model, (about 70 warships total) and we factor in known Dictators they had at the beginning of the war, that's 9-10 cruisers. Depending on how you figure escort to cruiser proportions, that's a pretty big chunk of your cruisers there.
That's not getting into Mars, or Jovian (which 'official' sources (BFGM issue 1) stated Battlefleet Gothic had brought one of into service shortly before the beginning of the war and supposedly had 3 of by the end [noting that FAQ2010 remains 'unofficial']).
What? Are you talking about the Jovian here? Newsflash, one of the reasons everyone is up in arms over the Jovian in the first place is for the exact same reason the Defiant shouldn't get 4AC. You can't be trying to argue that the inclusion of a much hated ship in an unofficial document paves the way for another much hated ship?
If it's so hated, why did it draw when it came to a vote to allow it to be taken as a reserve by other fleets? Judging by the amount of debate going on, the community is rather divided on the issue of IN AC.
But, no, that was not what I was talking about. I'm guessing no one runs minmaxed thawk spam lists where you live that abuse the RT list and the AC limit rules.
Look, I myself am by nature a purist. That is I tend to min/max and I also tend to extrapolate linearly and at full efficiency. So, when I see a Dictator or a Devastation with 1 hardpoint per side which launches 2AC then I figure that a Styx or Jovian should get 4 per side, since it has twice the number of hardpoints. Similarly I see 1 hardpoint per side on the Defiant and I say to myself "same as a Dictator". And if we had full strength Styx's and Jovians and a Nemesis fleet carrier right from the start I'd be fine with all that.
However GW decided, for whatever reason, to go with an inefficient expansion method. They decided that the most efficient way to get AC was with non-dedicated carriers. They decided that dedicated carriers provide less AC than would be expected. As such ships like the Dictator, Mars and Emperor are the mainstays of fleets.
It's been around since BFGM issue 1, the very next publication to come out after blue book. (Meaning we've had Jovian longer than we've had most of the fleets in the game. It came out the same issue that Tyranids were introduced).
I can't argue that GW didn't make launch bays a bit odd compared to the model. I can argue that they tossed Jovian at us the very next thing they did following Blue Book. I can argue that the fluff has steadily rising numbers of IN hybrid carriers due to military demand for AC and that a dedicated carrier is the logical outcome of that, due to the expense of building hybrids when what they want them for their launch bays not their guns.
Firstly it does have other weapons. Secondly, there is no truly efficient pure carrier in the IN. The Emperor comes close, but it isn't a pure carrier, having 24WBe in AC and 22WB in direct fire weaponry. So full strength is out.
Sig, my proposal was what I was talking about. The stat line I proposed was 4 lbs , maybe torps/a ld boost, with no direct fire weapons. It has Lbs but is utterly defenseless otherwise.
I'm always reasonable. Just not all that flexible. All my arguments are reasoned though. You have an agenda you are pushing (more AC centric IN) that makes you unreasonable. You ignore the consequences that a 4AC Defiant would create.
No, I just realize that the overall effect that most of you seem afraid of is already here. Further I realize that changing the weapon batteries/lances/torps to the degree that Defiant becomes a useful line ship alters the dynamic among the light cruisers, which is every bit the potential issue as making Defiant too powerful vs Dictator, a fact that none of you seem willing to consider in your fixation on the 'ZOMG! IN AC!'.
As far as opposition to change goes, Sig, we've got Ray (who I suspect has played more BFG than all of us combined) pitching Necrons with shields now. I'd say that IN getting marginally more AC is a relatively minor change compared to some of the things discussed these days.
-
I could see them getting a bonus to assault points when in low orbit if that would help explain the descripency with the launch bay size. The idea being that they carry a higher number of atmospheric attack wings to support ground forces. We could also give them the ability to replace their bombers with torpedo bombers for free or add mines for free.
Any of these options would fit with the role of a CVL and wouldnt require any great changes or price increases.
How are SM taking advantage of RT launch limits? If they are thats a very loose interpretation of te rules about launch bays and limits. You should be playing that you cannot launch more than the available bays for that type of attack craft not just some general "escort carriers can support thunderhawks" nonsense.
-
If it's so hated, why did it draw when it came to a vote to allow it to be taken as a reserve by other fleets? Judging by the amount of debate going on, the community is rather divided on the issue of IN AC.
If I had to wager a guess the draw is due to a relatively new crop of Bfg players showing up on the boards that are more prone to voting for whatever gives their fleet the best advantage which is resulting in feature creep. That results in a desire to see a more widely available pure carrier very attractive due to the relative power of AC in BFG. I admit having a more points efficient carrier is attractive for IN but it's definitely not something I agree with having. It's partly why I'm against the exorcist having 6 lb.
-
Ya I can agree with your view there Vaaish. Over all Im not opposed to the IN having "carriers" even really cheap ones, but they do meed to be more strictly regulated. For instance with the Defiant i can get behind a 4lb version with a reasonable price if theyre restricte to no more than 1/500, on the Jovian Im ok with it as a reserve only.
-
Vaaish, you presume motives where you have not enough evidence. It makes you appear elitist. I think you are being unfair to the voters.
-
If it's so hated, why did it draw when it came to a vote to allow it to be taken as a reserve by other fleets? Judging by the amount of debate going on, the community is rather divided on the issue of IN AC.
Because AC is what wins tournaments. :P
It's been around since BFGM issue 1, the very next publication to come out after blue book. (Meaning we've had Jovian longer than we've had most of the fleets in the game. It came out the same issue that Tyranids were introduced).
Well... after that issue other ships came in the magazines. Some of those ships got into Armada, the Jovian not. That's a hint. ;)
Just as Battlefleet Bakka was never liked by a majority of the community. If it was liked the list would've been added into Armada.
Plus, FFG, which you say is a viable source, has as I have proven, Defiants with 2 launch bays. ;)
-
Dan, name calling, seriously? do I really need to reference almost every discussion I've seen? There is more than enough evidence for me to posit my comment as a valid theory. Maybe not to prove it quite yet, but it definitely represents an apparent trend.
-
In not trying to call you names, I am merely giving you my perception. I don't think you are an elitist; maybe that was too harsh of me so I apologize. You may have evidence that people are pushing for more AC options in the IN fleet, but it certainly isn't fair or even kind to assume people are voting for things with selfish motives behind it.
-
Plus, FFG, which you say is a viable source, has as I have proven, Defiants with 2 launch bays. ;)
Horizon, you did no such thing. Again: Defiant (RT) is not the same hull as Endeavor (RT). It has a different number of weapon slots, and every ship that got the carrier rule got it's LBs at a discount (Go ahead and check this, you'll find it's true of every single 'carrier' in the book. Much as every other ship with a permanent weapon component also got it for, at the very least, a 1 point space discount).
All you've proven is that it's NOT the 1 point lb, no matter how many times you insist otherwise.
And we both know why Jovian wasn't in Armada as well, since (IIRC) one of the HA pointed it out back in 2010, it (like Bakka) was cut for space. (Something we both know about from our experiences with FFG: perfectly good [or even necessary] stuff gets cut to bring page counts down)
If I had to wager a guess the draw is due to a relatively new crop of Bfg players showing up on the boards that are more prone to voting for whatever gives their fleet the best advantage which is resulting in feature creep.
Codex Creep is a universal factor in 40k (fan based or otherwise). We saw it in Armada, FAQ 2010, and now this. And you have a point that it's happening here and not just in AC.
-
The light cruisers cannot take the landing bays as it is cruiser only. Light cruisers can only take escort bays. The defiant is a light cruiser. point proven.
Where was it said bakka was scrapped for space?
-
Well, other than Escort carriers not being a standard element of IN, and production of the Mars having ceased millenia ago and there being 'few surviving examples' (BFG Blue Book)...
Further, Battlefleet Gothic itself has, according to Blue Book, 7 new Dictators to make up for demand. If Gothic follows the more 'average' model, (about 70 warships total) and we factor in known Dictators they had at the beginning of the war, that's 9-10 cruisers. Depending on how you figure escort to cruiser proportions, that's a pretty big chunk of your cruisers there.
That's not getting into Mars, or Jovian (which 'official' sources (BFGM issue 1) stated Battlefleet Gothic had brought one of into service shortly before the beginning of the war and supposedly had 3 of by the end [noting that FAQ2010 remains 'unofficial']).
Keep in mind that since the Jovian never became official neither did the fluff associated with it. BFG Mag was like Warp Rift, a place to try new ideas. Also, if the scarcity of the Mars led to the increase in production of Dictators to "keep up with demand" then it stands to reason that there aren't any Mars left, or at least sod all. So the ratio of carriers remains pretty much the same. Maybe a slight bump.
If it's so hated, why did it draw when it came to a vote to allow it to be taken as a reserve by other fleets? Judging by the amount of debate going on, the community is rather divided on the issue of IN AC.
That's what shows it's so hated. Even as a reserve it didn't pass muster.
But, no, that was not what I was talking about. I'm guessing no one runs minmaxed thawk spam lists where you live that abuse the RT list and the AC limit rules.
Nope. Don't really play the RT stuff. It's really just extras. Stuff for colour. Also, SCs should only have 1 prow TH. ::)
It's been around since BFGM issue 1, the very next publication to come out after blue book. (Meaning we've had Jovian longer than we've had most of the fleets in the game. It came out the same issue that Tyranids were introduced).
Well, the 2nd publication after the BBB. That's neither here nor there though. It was never made official. Most likely because the HA of the time didn't want the IN to be carrier centric and didn't want to invalidate the INs current carrier crop.
I can't argue that GW didn't make launch bays a bit odd compared to the model. I can argue that they tossed Jovian at us the very next thing they did following Blue Book. I can argue that the fluff has steadily rising numbers of IN hybrid carriers due to military demand for AC and that a dedicated carrier is the logical outcome of that, due to the expense of building hybrids when what they want them for their launch bays not their guns.
Well you can't argue the fluff. The fluff is as unofficial as the ship. It begs the question you see. As for showing us the Jovian straight away, well, so what? I mean, they showed us a lot of stuff, hardly any of which became official. The fact that it didn't become official when later additions did says that there's something off about it.
Sig, my proposal was what I was talking about. The stat line I proposed was 4 lbs , maybe torps/a ld boost, with no direct fire weapons. It has Lbs but is utterly defenseless otherwise.
IIRC you proposed 4 torpedoes. That's not inconsequential. Better than the 2T/2WB that's on the table. It's still beside the point though. Pure carriers suffer in their AC strength. The Jovian also suffered a reduced amount of non-AC weaponry and even then it still didn't make the cut.
No, I just realize that the overall effect that most of you seem afraid of is already here. Further I realize that changing the weapon batteries/lances/torps to the degree that Defiant becomes a useful line ship alters the dynamic among the light cruisers, which is every bit the potential issue as making Defiant too powerful vs Dictator, a fact that none of you seem willing to consider in your fixation on the 'ZOMG! IN AC!'.
No, the overall effect isn't already here. The 4AC Defiant changes things. As to your "realisation", every single person in this discussion is aware of this. We all know that the prow and dorsal has to be pretty much identical to the other two CLs. People have naturally suggested alterations to these hardpoints in an attempt to balance this ship but others have raised the appropriate concerns, so even if they were ignorant at some point, they have been made aware. This is why the Defiant has become very hard to nail down though we do have several viable profiles. A testament to the amount of work gone into it.
As far as opposition to change goes, Sig, we've got Ray (who I suspect has played more BFG than all of us combined) pitching Necrons with shields now. I'd say that IN getting marginally more AC is a relatively minor change compared to some of the things discussed these days.
Ray, god bless his little heart, has always proposed some outlandish ideas. I think he works by a notion of volume, thinking that if he throws enough ideas out there some will stick. But the fact that someone comes up with an oddball suggestion is in no way cause to throw out the current interfleet AC balance.
In fact, shields might not be such a bad idea for Necrons. Presumably Ray put forward this notion to address the problem of the Necrons being susceptible to incidental fire but almost impervious to concentrated fire, which seems to be the reverse of how it should be. The shield mechanic is probably the best mechanic for advanced races but it was snagged early on in the piece by the humans. The point being that fixing this could actually resolve the discrepancy between how the fleet currently plays and how it's meant to play as well as possibly provide a positive impact on interfleet balance. Making Necrons less luck dependant is good for both the Necron player and his opponent.
On the other hand messing around with the IN AC to points ratio affects not only their feel, making them more carrier centric, but also the abilities of other fleets. Chaos, for example, depend on their AC superiority as a way to mitigate the IN torpedoes. You would have us do this, in contradiction of current convention, on the strength of some very dubious fluff arguments to further your view of a carrier centric IN. A view not shared by most people.
While it may be possible for the IN to have carrier fleets and, indeed, fleet carriers, it isn't typical. Even when we take your calculations to heart we can see that the Gothic sector fleet had at some stage, what, a quarter(?) of its numbers in Dictators we are then left asking, so what? You can take a quarter of your fleet as Dictators right now, or even more. This doesn't prove that the Imperium is all gung ho for carriers and so in love with them that they make 4AC Defiants and 8 AC Jovians and 12AC Nemeses all over the place. It just means that carriers fulfill a role within the IN and so they have them. Further, I would suggest that as carrier ops are integral carriers are therefore less likely to be mustered into a warfleet, having critical duties to attend to elsewhere. It is more likely that gunships will answer the call.
If we allow these mega Defiants and Joke-ians and Nemesesesesess then what we're going to do is take a very rare occurrence within the Imperium and make it commonplace. This is because min/maxers will look at the list and make the most outrageous AC fleet they can. Over and over. Why? Because it's allowed. So while it may be an occasional happen-stance within the Imperium, it isn't in BFG.
-
Vaaish, you presume motives where you have not enough evidence. It makes you appear elitist. I think you are being unfair to the voters.
He wasn't presuming. The challenge was to come up with a reason for a hated ship to be almost included as a reserve. He was suggesting that there might have been some people who were ignorant of the broader issues and simply saw a nice ship and wanted it. This is one possible explanation for the event, but it's incomplete, since one could argue that these so called 'ignorant people' weren't demonstrating hatred for the Jovian. To be complete you'd have to go further and say that the hatred comes from those that are not ignorant. So it could be true that it is much hated (by, say, half the BFG community) and loved by a very few with the remainder ambivalent.
Either way he wasn't saying that this was the reason, just that it's a possible and credible reason.
-
"prone to voting for whatever gives their fleet the best advantage"
This is what I was indicating as assuming motives.
-
Have you considered adding the Enforcer colonial cruiser? ..... I think it was from bakka's fleet
it was a Dauntless (3 prow lances) with +1 turret and 2 Launch instead of 8 wb
(http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/4751/enforcer13kn.jpg)
-
The light cruisers cannot take the landing bays as it is cruiser only. Light cruisers can only take escort bays. The defiant is a light cruiser. point proven.
Horizon, yes, a non Defiant light cruiser can only take str 1 lbs. Let me repeat again, the ships that were given permanent items was done so to give discounts and allow the to have components they could not otherwise take. When asked to fix the non-existing Jovian pattern Launch bay, they spat out:
"The Carrier ability should specify that the Jovian-class Launch Bay Components are Landing Bays."
In addition, let's apply common sense: if the existing rule applied, there is 0 point to having Defiant as a separate hull profile from Endeavor. There's particularly no point in giving it the 'Carrier' ability at all, as by your numbers, the effects of that ability are not applied to the ship, it's paying full cost for the str 1s, where every other ship with it is gets LBs at a reduced space cost.
Where was it said bakka was scrapped for space?
Honestly I'm not sure there. I vaguely recall Sig demanding to know why Bakka would be included in the FAQ and the answer being to that effect.
Have you considered adding the Enforcer colonial cruiser? ..... I think it was from bakka's fleet
it was a Dauntless (3 prow lances) with +1 turret and 2 Launch instead of 8 wb
The Enforcer has been debated in the past. So far it has never made it past the 'Baron: I like it!, Horizon: IN AC is the Devil!, Sig: I hate Bakka!' stage of discussion.
-
Have you considered adding the Enforcer colonial cruiser? ..... I think it was from bakka's fleet
it was a Dauntless (3 prow lances) with +1 turret and 2 Launch instead of 8 wb
The Enforcer has been debated in the past. So far it has never made it past the 'Baron: I like it!, Horizon: IN AC is the Devil!, Sig: I hate Bakka!' stage of discussion.
too bad, the one in the picture is actually part of my fleet :(
-
The light cruisers cannot take the landing bays as it is cruiser only. Light cruisers can only take escort bays. The defiant is a light cruiser. point proven.
Horizon, yes, a non Defiant light cruiser can only take str 1 lbs. Let me repeat again, the ships that were given permanent items was done so to give discounts and allow the to have components they could not otherwise take. When asked to fix the non-existing Jovian pattern Launch bay, they spat out:
"The Carrier ability should specify that the Jovian-class Launch Bay Components are Landing Bays."
In addition, let's apply common sense: if the existing rule applied, there is 0 point to having Defiant as a separate hull profile from Endeavor. There's particularly no point in giving it the 'Carrier' ability at all, as by your numbers, the effects of that ability are not applied to the ship, it's paying full cost for the str 1s, where every other ship with it is gets LBs at a reduced space cost.
Rule bending BaronI. That is what you are doing.
In the text of the Mars, Excorcist and Defiant it is written as Jovian Launch Bay components.
Jovian Launch Bays is not written in both tables whichs lists launch bays. It is either Escort Bays (for light cruiser, specifically designed or Landing bays (not for light cruisers.
The Defiant has written light cruisers.
By your token a light cruiser could muster a nova cannon. :P (if you stretch your reasoning long enough ;)
Pre-Installed components still have to follow the rules of placement.
It cannot be so hard to understand. ;)
And stop saying I hate AC so much. Your completely wasting space. I voted for a better Oberon, I agreed with lowering the Dictator, I want to make the Defiant cheaper/playable.
The only problem I had was with the Excorcist. And of course with a Nemesis, Jovian, 4lb Defiant. The Enforcer was to cheap compared to the Dauntless by a large margin.
So stop that nonsense. ::)
-
If it's so hated, why did it draw when it came to a vote to allow it to be taken as a reserve by other fleets?
It didn't. It lost that vote.
No, I just realize that the overall effect that most of you seem afraid of is already here.
No, it isn't.
You say if people want to prevent easy access to pure carriers, they "missed the boat" back in 2010 when the Jovian came in. But the Jovian was only allowed as a reserve, and only in one list (as it now remains in BFG:R, thanks to the aforementioned vote). That suggests another dedicated carrier, a 4LB Defiant, should also be restricted by reserve rules (and maybe restricted to fewer lists - e.g. only Obscurus and Solar).
Of course no-one thinks that's a good way to go. I just want you to know that that's what you're really arguing for if you want to argue by that precedent.
-
"prone to voting for whatever gives their fleet the best advantage"
This is what I was indicating as assuming motives.
Well it's rather an explanation. I mean, it's plausible, right? So, as an alternative explanation to the notion that Jovians aren't "much hated because they almost passed the vote for inclusion" it stands. It may not be true, but it's a plausible explanation.
-
The Enforcer has been debated in the past. So far it has never made it past the 'Baron: I like it!, Horizon: IN AC is the Devil!, Sig: I hate Bakka!' stage of discussion.
I would like to correct some inaccuracies with these stances. Your stance, for example, isn't "I like it", it's "I want supercarrier IN". Horizon's stance is not, as he has pointed out, anti-AC for IN either. And as for my stance ... well alright you nailed that one on the head. 8)
-
Rule bending BaronI. That is what you are doing.
In the text of the Mars, Excorcist and Defiant it is written as Jovian Launch Bay components.
Jovian Launch Bays is not written in both tables whichs lists launch bays. It is either Escort Bays (for light cruiser, specifically designed or Landing bays (not for light cruisers.
The Defiant has written light cruisers.
By your token a light cruiser could muster a nova cannon. :P (if you stretch your reasoning long enough ;)
Pre-Installed components still have to follow the rules of placement.
It cannot be so hard to understand. ;)
*sigh*
"The Carrier ability should specify that the Jovian-class Launch Bay Components are Landing Bays."
I'm not bending a thing. In fact, I'm upholding their ruling on this.
Yes, if they wrote a light cruiser in the book that has the 'Inherent Warship' ability, yes, we'd have a LC with a mars pattern nova cannon and an armored prow (and would get the NC at a 1 space discount, the same as the 'Torpedo Specialist's get a 1 space discount on their torpedo tubes).
(And don't think they wouldn't have if it suited them. They did add, after all, Chaos Light Cruisers to their line up, and you might recall the tantrums that have been thrown over that issue, occasionally by people on this very board.)
They did not write that hypothetical ship into the book, but they did write Defiant into the book, they gave it the 'Carrier' ability and when asked for clarification on the ability they said:
"The Carrier ability should specify that the Jovian-class Launch Bay Components are Landing Bays."
The only way that Defiant follows the apparent rules for that ability is if they have the str 2 launch bays, which exactly matches what they said the carrier rule should say.
It lost that vote.
No, it didn't. I had to write in my vote because it would not allow me to use the voting button (this was not corrected until after that vote was over). Which made it a draw.
Well it's rather an explanation. I mean, it's plausible, right? So, as an alternative explanation to the notion that Jovians aren't "much hated because they almost passed the vote for inclusion" it stands. It may not be true, but it's a plausible explanation.
Ok, I'll agree with that. It is a plausible explanation, and not en entirely unreasonable statement. The same could be said of other votes that have gone through are plausibly explained by people seeking to improve their favored fleet lists competitiveness as well. (The Bastion Fleets have certainly been getting a buff).
I would like to correct some inaccuracies with these stances. Your stance, for example, isn't "I like it", it's "I want supercarrier IN". Horizon's stance is not, as he has pointed out, anti-AC for IN either. And as for my stance ... well alright you nailed that one on the head. 8)
I'll add that one 'no one ever opposed lances on SM VBBs' despite 10 pages of people ranting and opposing exactly that. Though, I grant, Horizon has softened his position on it of late.
My position has always been that the best way to fix Defiant is to increase it's lbs. Even at 4 it only increases it to equal Chaos, the fleet that IN is supposed to be balanced against.
-
I wished ffg had published their background on the chaos cl, I read it in the work files. It would explain a lot.
Where does it say carrier is landing bay?
-
I wished ffg had published their background on the chaos cl, I read it in the work files. It would explain a lot.
Where does it say carrier is landing bay?
FFG is bound by lot of silly things. You would not believe the crap GW gave them about The Lathe Worlds, particularly not being allowed to write about skittari or the Titan Legions beyond the very basics. It's why we have the rather odd 'I can't believe it's not skittari' class in the book.
On the forum someone posted a Question and Response from Sam. I'd have to dig around for it. The fan operated 'Living Errata' quotes it on the Mars and Exorcist, but they left it out on Defiant because they could not get a clear response from FFG about 'Does this also cover Defiant?'. There have been about six threads on the subject on FFG's boards and so far no answer has been forth coming, though like you and I just now, they've argued back and forth about it.
(As far as the Rogue Trader game itself goes, the strongest argument against has been that the way the rules for AC, weapon batteries, and sheilds in the game work, the Cruiser can be killed by a single iconoclast with a turret upgrade with near 0 difficulty, if the Defiant mounts anything but a torpedo bay loaded with homing or guided torps in it's prow. And that there's at least one that costs less and has superior AC launch capability.
Personally I'm waiting to hear back about the Potent result on the Archeotech table in Stars of Inequity. Even *I* think that's a bit much, but so far they have not responded to address this issue with an 'official' statement so the Errata guys can go to work. I'm hoping they get back faster than they did with the Nova Cannon issue in BFK. That took them until July of 2012 to give an answer on which power and space value in the book was correct.)
-
No, it didn't. I had to write in my vote because it would not allow me to use the voting button (this was not corrected until after that vote was over). Which made it a draw.
I see. Sorry, I didn't know that.
Still, I don't know what your trying to argue for. You talk of the cat being let out of the bag back in 2010 with the Jovian. Even if the Jovian's current restrictions were lifted (-they weren't-), it would still only set the precedent that a dedicated carrier was available only as a reserve. By that example, you'd appear to be arguing that another dedicated carrier, now a new 4LB Defiant, should be allowed, but implicitly only as a reserve, as in the case of the Jovian.
I guess that's not what you want, right? So how does it avail the cause of widespread access to a 4LB light cruiser to argue from that precedent (even ignoring the fact that precedent hasn't even been set yet)?
-
Still, I don't know what your trying to argue for. You talk of the cat being let out of the bag back in 2010 with the Jovian.
Actually I'm not talking about Jovian at all. (Jovian is just somethign that gets me distracted.)
I'm talking about how the RT rules interact with IN in FAQ 2010, basically allowing Escort Carriers into fleets that otherwise could not take them. For 60 points you can take the same number of LBs as you get with Defiant at 100. It's NOT as good, but you can spam the hell out of them cheaply, whereas Defiant has limits.
So saying that Defiant at 4 lbs will alter the IN AC dynamic ignores that it's already been altered.
-
OK, I see your point now.
By the way, about the FFG stuff, you said early on that it was the Defiant's fluff that said it had 4 launch bays. But now you seem to be arguing from a rules perspective (and a seemingly very tenuous one at that), but not a fluff one. Am I wrong? If you are, that would seem weird to me: like arguing my Space Marine's heavy bolter should get 2 sustained-fire dice, because that's the way it works in Necromunda. They're two entirely different games with different rulesets - It doesn't make any sense. And neither system trumps the other. You could equally argue that FFG's rules should be changed to better match BFG.
Anyway, I'll let people more familiar with both systems sort that one out.
[Edit: Well, this discussion is all pretty much academic now. Looking at the votes on the other thread, the 4LB Defiant is almost certainly dead...]
-
By the way, about the FFG stuff, you said early on that it was the Defiant's fluff that said it had 4 launch bays. But now you seem to be arguing from a rules perspective (and a seemingly very tenuous one at that), but not a fluff one. Am I wrong? If you are, that would seem weird to me: like arguing my Space Marine's heavy bolter should get 2 sustained-fire dice, because that's the way it works in Necromunda. They're two entirely different games with different rulesets - It doesn't make any sense. And neither system trumps the other. You could equally argue that FFG's rules should be changed to better match BFG.
Anyway, I'll let people more familiar with both systems sort that one out.
[Edit: Well, this discussion is all pretty much academic now. Looking at the votes on the other thread, the 4LB Defiant is almost certainly dead...]
Yeah, I didn't even vote for it. As far as the fluff goes it's hard to make specific points like exact str because they keep it vague. In this case the stat was something concrete, thus we didn't have to argue if it was the in universe speaker being over dramatic or not.
However, part of it is that Weapon str is a sat shared by both systems. If you look at a Lunar in BFG and a Lunar in RT they're identical as far as WB and Lance str.
-
Yeah, specific stat strength.
In starship components table and mentioned in supplemental components table:
Jovian pattern Escort Bay - Light Cruisers/Cruisers - strength 1
Jovian pattern Landing Bay - Cruisers - strength 2
The Gryphon
p/s Jovian Pattern Landing Bays - each bay has two squadrons of Fury and Interceptors and two squadrons of Starhawmk bombers, for four Fury and four Starhawk squadrons total.
Fluff bit by Victoria Horne, captain of the Hawk- Defiant CL:
About the Warspite, a Dictator: hopes to take command...truly impressed...the legions of attack craft.
While the latter is an exaggartion it does show that the Dictator has more attack craft then the Defiant otherwise she would not have make such a claim.
I held the book upside down, sideways and correct. I read every carrier bit and I my conclusion is always the same. Defiant has Escort Bays. Your reasonings are clearly assumptions and my take is backed up by tables, reasonable reasonings and text in the book.
Sorry, Baron, but you need to come with a lot better claims. :)
edit: the errate had the Mars & Excorcist. Why? Because it could be either Escort Bays or Landing bays on them as either can go on a cruiser. They have Landing bays.
For the Defiant the question wasn't needed to as it can only take one of type the bays.
-
I guess we could allow ships like the jovian or the enforcer limiting them to 0-1 cause their rarity...
-
To pick one ship from a rare list?
Otherwise a scrupulous person could take:
1 Jovian and 1 Enforcer
-
To pick one ship from a rare list?
Otherwise a scrupulous person could take:
1 Jovian and 1 Enforcer
Indeed. a list of rare hated ships where you can choose only one from... good idea for those poor ill-fated vessels to show themselves in battle once in a while, without destroying the delicate Bfg balance...
-
Or we could leave well enough alone, dont add the enforcer and let people just take them with their opponents permission like always. Balance is unchanged and everyone gets what they want.
-
Or take an Enforcer and call it a Defiant.
-
Or we could leave well enough alone, dont add the enforcer and let people just take them with their opponents permission like always. Balance is unchanged and everyone gets what they want.
^
-
Your reasonings are clearly assumptions and my take is backed up by tables, reasonable reasonings and text in the book.
My position is backed up by the test of the book and the stats of every single other ship with the 'Carrier' ability in the book. My assumption is that that ability works the same the same on every ship. Your assumption is that Endeavor and Defiant are the same hull in RT, which is not backed up by their stats (Endeavor has 4 weapon slots, Defiant has 3).
edit: the errate had the Mars & Excorcist. Why? Because it could be either Escort Bays or Landing bays on them as either can go on a cruiser. They have Landing bays.
For the Defiant the question wasn't needed to as it can only take one of type the bays.
The Errata has Mars and Exorcist because there was no debate about the rather vague statement from FFG applying to them. They have never issued any clarification on Defiant despite being asked many times by many people, and so the errata writers played it safe, not being FFG employees, last I heard.
(Totally not proof but an interesting note: most people seem to be playing it as a 4 lb ship when I asked around. According to the GMs I've spoken with, it's pretty balanced.)
-
BFK has the pilots and attackcraft support personel for a Defiant at ~6100 and a Dictator at ~15000.
And the rules flat out say that the 2bay module cannot be placed on a light cruisr hull. Reguardless of anything else the fluff says that the Defiant is an Endeavour varient not an entirely different hull and there is no denying its a light cruiser.
So thats fluff and rules for both BFG and BFK supporting 2 launch not 4.
-
BFK has the pilots and attackcraft support personel for a Defiant at ~6100 and a Dictator at ~15000.
And the rules flat out say that the 2bay module cannot be placed on a light cruisr hull. Reguardless of anything else the fluff says that the Defiant is an Endeavour varient not an entirely different hull and there is no denying its a light cruiser.
So thats fluff and rules for both BFG and BFK supporting 2 launch not 4.
Well, there might be a case to assume that the Defiant has 4 bays in BFK due to some unclear wording/precedents, but the point is that since it's debatable in that system then there is zero reason to bring it up for this system. Mind you, even if it were clear cut there's no particular reason why we should alter BFG stats to accommodate BFK stats. They're different game systems. If anything it should be the other way around, since BFK stats draw from BFG profiles.
If they chose to show an Emperor with 10 launch bays that's no reason for us to change the BFG Emperor to 10, regardless if there exists a verisimilitude between the two systems weapon strengths.
-
Thank you Andrew. ;)
Indeed another good argument.
eg. there is nothing like a 'carrier capability' in BFK. There are four vessels (Mars, Excorcist, Dictator, Defiant) who come with pre-installed components -> Jovian Launch Bays (generic term, not specified Landing or Escort).
For example a Lunar does not come with pre-installed weapon batteries and lances on its broadsides. The character vessels (Sirius) do show a Lunar with these components.
In the entry it says that the Defiant is a rarer variant of the Endeavour. And yes it is has other prow slots (1 less), but that is where they took BFG rules/stats to literal imo.
-
If they chose to show an Emperor with 10 launch bays that's no reason for us to change the BFG Emperor to 10, regardless if there exists a verisimilitude between the two systems weapon strengths.
Hmm... Ok, Sig, I grant that's a good point as I was just working out Styx under the RT rules and it comes to 8 lbs. (Possibly as high as 24 depending on how broken your interpretation of the archeotech table in Stars of Inequity is, but I'll go to Hell before I allow a heavy cruiser to have THAT many lbs. I'm amazed there has not been errata for that book yet...)
I will say that RT's Defiant is definitely balanced at 4 lbs for it's SP cost, but that our Defiant may not match up.
I have not seen, speaking of balance, any new play tests with any of these suggestions that people have made, despite all the voting going on.
-
@BaronIveagh Fantasy Flight Games updates their errata yearly, not by the book unfortunately. What I really wish is that they would choose a better manufacturer; despite the inherent beauty of their products, their books are the single most fragile product line of gaming manuals I have ever used, and considering I have played over 20 seperate rpg's that's saying something. They simply fall apart at a ridiculous speed.
-
@BaronIveagh Fantasy Flight Games updates their errata yearly, not by the book unfortunately.
That and the guys that were running the 'Living Errata' for them seem to have dropped off the map again. They were doing a decent job at keeping up, but FFG seems to be again in the 'non-responsive' mode when questioned. We used to get replies pretty quick before Sam got moved to other properties.
-
The fact Ross Watson no longer works for FFG may have to do with it. I mailed a couple of times with him and he was responsive & quick on mails.
-
Okay,
I mailed the FFG rule question mail address, this was their response:
Hi Roy,
Good question. It should have the Escort Bays.
I hope that this helps!
--
Max Brooke
Associate RPG Producer
Fantasy Flight Games
mbrooke@fantasyflightgames.com
On Mar 28, 2013, at 12:04 AM, wrote:
Message from:
Roy Amkreutz
E-mail:
Horizon@epic40k.co.uk
Rule Question:
Hi,
In battlefleet koronus, does the defiant light cruiser come with jovian pattern escort bays or jovian pattern landing bays?
For now that should settle it until a higher up from FFG (eg Sam) says otherwise I imagine.
-
Or until Max writes again.
Hi Colin,
That is one possibility, sure. Another possibility is that the crew could restructure the ship entirely to field larger launch bays, and integrate the Strength 2 Jovian Bays into their individual Defiant-class Light Cruiser.
I hope that this is helpful!
--
Max Brooke
Associate RPG Producer
Fantasy Flight Games
mbrooke@fantasyflightgames.com
On Mar 29, 2013, at 2:19 PM, Colin wrote:
So… you're saying that the component might taken at a better craftsmanship version at +1 str?
From: Max Brooke [mailto:mbrooke@fantasyflightgames.com]
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 3:07 PM
To: <redacted>
Subject: Re: Fantasy Flight Games [Rules Questions] - Rogue Trader
Hi Colin,
Good question. The Defiant-class Light Cruiser uses the Light Cruiser version of the Jovian-pattern Bays (the Escort Bays, which are Strength 1).
However, a crew might be able to undertake some sort of endeavour to upgrade the fighter capacity of these bays (adding new components, co-opting space from other parts of the ship, or finding another solution), increasing their Strength accordingly.
I hope that this helps!
--
Max Brooke
Associate RPG Producer
Fantasy Flight Games
mbrooke@fantasyflightgames.com
On Mar 29, 2013, at 1:43 PM, <email redacted> wrote:
Message from:
Colin
Email: <redacted>
Rule Question:
In Battlefleet Koronus, it states that the Defiant class light cruiser uses Jovian pattern bays but does not say which one.
The str 1 does not match the rules the rest of the carriers seem to be using, but the Str 2 does.
But the str 1 says it's for light cruisers and the str 2 says it's for cruisers.
So which is it?
It looks like we're both right depending on the craftsmanship of the launch bays. Or, at least, that's how I'm interpreting this. I'll just concede the point though, since the correct answer seems to be 'it varies' which is SO GW...
-
Not really. Those are both very direct answers. The Defiant gets str1 launch bays. Thats not saying that the crew cant find a way to make them str2 but they all come with str1 standard.
-
Not really. Those are both very direct answers. The Defiant gets str1 launch bays. Thats not saying that the crew cant find a way to make them str2 but they all come with str1 standard.
Yes and no. Several IN ships, such as Gothic, are actually impossible under RT rules unless they use at least 'Good' Craftsmanship parts, which can alter the item involved's stats including str.
It basically ends up boiling down to was the ship built to a higher or more average standard. BFG is geared toward 'generic' ships as the baseline, but individual forgeworlds have different levels of capability and craftsmanship. And pattern.
That and the difference in the amount of space they take up is bizarrely miniscule, comparatively. Str 1 is 4 units, str 2 is 6, but str 1 holds 3 AC wings, str 2 holds 6. And due to the fact that Defiant only has a single free weapon hard point that cannot accept a broadside weapon, even at str 2 you can pack it with optional components like a sardine can and have room and power to spare. The problem is: at str 1 lbs it can be killed by a single iconoclast very, very easily, particularly compared to the sort of beat down that the Iconoclast would get from every other cruiser.
However, the number of possible arguments for and against is staggering, which is why I'm conceding the point. We'd argue in circles for weeks with the only result of getting irritated with each other.
BTW: I have to throw this out here: I'm a crazy to want a 4 lb Defiant, but it's perfectly OK for Chaos to get the Torpedo Machine known as Schismatic?
-
I think the answer is exactly the same.
Standard the Defiant comes with str1 launch bays. He writes that in your reply as well.
He does add that the crew could restructure the ship to fit bigger bays.
So with extensive work, yes it could be, but standard -> str1 bays.
You have to agree on that one.
Andrew's comment on the 6000 vs 15000 pilots also support this.
///
I ain't a fan of the Schismatic.
-
So with extensive work, yes it could be, but standard -> str1 bays.
Well... again, yes and no. Remember that different craftsmanship levels of the same component have different stats. That's why I asked him specifically about if it could be taken at +1 str by simply having it at a higher craftsmanship level (same as macrocanons and lances). So, yes, it is the Escort bay, but the escort bay does not necessarily mean str 1. Remember that IN ships do not always, and in some cases cannot, use the standard component. Which is why I concede the point because without further information we'd just sit here and argue.
-
That last part is true, but wouldn't it be more convenient if it was the basics that dictate the rule and not possible added extras?
-
That last part is true, but wouldn't it be more convenient if it was the basics that dictate the rule and not possible added extras?
True but because of Gothic we can't actually say for absolutely certain because it takes the 'added extras' to make one of the more or less basic ships of IN, and at str 1 Defiant is broken to the point that no one would take it by choice in RT. (it would actually be better to take the Endeavour and fit it with the escort bays.)